Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT AND ITALY.

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to state whether, in view of the invasion of our Ally Egypt by Italy, the Egyptian Government intend to declare war on Italy?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): My Noble Friend cannot undertake to make an official statement of the intentions of another Government. I can, however, say that relations between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government are of the friendliest character, as is natural in view of the Treaty of Alliance, which the Egyptian Government are fulfilling in all respects.

Mr. Mander: Are not the Egyptian Government taking a long time to carry out their obligation to resist aggression?

Mr. Butler: I can only say that the Egyptian Government are carrying out their treaty of alliance in every respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (TRADE DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any satisfactory progress is being made in regard to trade agreements between the British Ambassador at Moscow and the representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement about the prospects of an agreement between this country and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on commercial and other outstanding matters?

Mr. Butler: Trade discussions between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet

Government are still in progress. I am not, however, in a position to make a more detailed statement than this at the present stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC STATES (SHIPPING).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now able to state the position with regard to the settlement of the outstanding differences between the British and Soviet Governments concerning the Baltic States and the release of gold and shipping?

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was consulted by the Ministry of Shipping before 13 more ships of the Baltic States were recently requisitioned, in view of the reaction on the Russian Government?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many ships of Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian nationality have been commandeered for service by His Majesty's Government since those countries became incorporated in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and whether any decision has yet been taken to release them and all other ships of similar nationality preliminary to handing them over to the Soviet authorities?

Mr. Butler: Altogether 24 ships of Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian nationality have been formally requisitioned by His Majesty's Government. This measure was taken after due consultation between the Departments concerned. The question of the ships, and other questions arising out of the Soviet occupation of the Baltic States, are at present under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government, and it is not possible to make a more detailed statement at this stage.

Mr. Mander: Were the Russian Ambassador and the Russian Government informed during the negotiations that it was intended to requisition some of these ships?

Mr. Butler: Oh, yes; His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow indicated to the Soviet Government that this action would be taken, and the matter is under discus-


sion between His Majesty's Ambassador and the Soviet Government.

Mr. Mander: They were notified before it was done?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is this sort of requisitioning intended to improve our relations with the Soviet Government?

Mr. Butler: The matter is a complicated and technical one. I hope we shall be able to reach some agreement with the Soviet Government on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Under-Secretary misleading this House when he talks about the Soviet Government taking over the Baltic States? Is it not the case that the Baltic States went over quite voluntarily?

Mr. Butler: That has nothing to do with the agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICA (BRITISH MISSION).

Sir Malcolm Robertson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what general and particular instructions have been issued to the mission to South American countries headed by the Marquess of Willingdon; by which Departments of His Majesty's Government those instructions have been issued; whether the mission will proceed to Central as well as to South America; and whether he can describe the qualifications of the members of the mission?

Mr. Butler: The purpose of the mission headed by Lord Willingdon will be to study at first hand the maintenance and improvement of mutual exchanges of trade under the difficult conditions of war. The mission has been instructed to explain British economic and contraband control policy in the countries which it visits. In order to counteract the unscrupulous efforts of Axis propaganda it will show that we have been able to maintain our export trade under war conditions, and it will explain the fundamental necessities underlying our treatment of the problem of purchases and payments. The mission will be armed with instructions on the foregoing lines which have been prepared by all the De-

partments concerned. Visits will be paid to all the countries of South America, with one exception, but Central America will not be visited. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names and qualifications of members of the mission. The representatives of trade and industry who accompany the mission were selected by those whose interests they are to represent.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon Friend who asked this Question was not only Ambassador in the Argentine for a great number of years, but that he was regarded as an ambassador of industry, and, in view of his unique experience, was he consulted in regard to this mission?

Mr. Butler: I am not sure whether the right hon. Member was consulted, but I do know that his experience is appreciated, and no doubt we shall have the value of that experience in the House, where he will doubtless show as much zeal as he has shown in the past.

Sir Percy Harris: Can the Under-Secretary say who was consulted? What were the organisations, what sections of industry? Were they chambers of commerce, or what?

Mr. Butler: All the organisations sending representatives to South America were consulted. We have endless opportunities of consulting business interests, and all those opportunities were taken, and we also had the assistance of those who have long experience of South American countries.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Member spoke of "representatives representing interests in this country." Surely this is not the time for that sort of procedure. Should they not represent one interest and one interest only, the national interest?

Mr. Butler: I am confident that they will do so.

Captain Plugge: Since the right hon. Member who put the original Question is in the House, could he say whether he was consulted?

Mr. Mander: Which is the country which is not to be visited?

Mr. Butler: Paraguay.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL EXPORTS TO JAPAN.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can make a statement concerning the progress of the negotiations for the sale of oil to the Government of Japan now being conducted by British, Dutch and American companies?

Mr. Butler: According to the information furnished to my noble Friend, progress has been made with the negotiations, but I am not in a position to make any further statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that as things stand at present the Japanese are permitted to purchase crude oil and partially refined oil from American companies?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, the American embargo applies only to the higher octane spirit.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government endeavour to ensure that British companies at least shall confine their sales to meeting the needs of this country and to those who are resisting aggression?

Mr. Butler: Naturally our own needs come first.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Ambassador to Mexico has made any report concerning the action of the Mexican Government in cancelling oil concessions which had been granted to the Government of Japan and in laying an embargo on the export of petrol, mercury and other war requirements to Japan?

Mr. Butler: According to information received by my Noble Friend from His Majesty's Consul-General at Mexico, the Mexican Government do not propose to enforce the embargo on the export of certain materials to Japan.

Mr. Thorne: Does not the right hon. Member agree that the Government blundered in not making an arrangement with the Mexican Government months ago?

Mr. Butler: Oh no, the Government were very wise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ALIENS (ENLISTMENT).

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether there is any general rule excluding from all branches of the Royal Air Force men who, though British-born or naturalised citizens, are sons of aliens; and, if not, what is the regulation applying to such men?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): No, Sir. British subjects of alien parentage may be commissioned or enlisted in the Royal Air Force if they are found to be suitable in all respects.

Miss Rathbone: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that some offices have been giving information to the contrary effect to persons in the category named?

Captain Balfour: No. Sir, I am not aware of that. The statutory peace-time disqualification was removed by Order-in-Council on 28th September last, and if the hon. Lady can give me particulars of any recruiting offices where this is not known, I will take the necessary steps to have attention drawn to it.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that there is considerable uncertainty as to the extent and conditions under which it is possible for aliens, whether belonging to Allied States or neutral countries, or friendly aliens of enemy origin, to join the Royal Air Force or any body auxiliary to it; and under what conditions such aliens can apply at recruiting offices with the hope that, if personally suitable, they will be accepted for enlistment, distinguishing, if necessary, between the three groups indicated?

Captain Balfour: Full information on the matters raised by the hon. Lady can be obtained at the combined recruiting centres. Any person of neutral origin, or a friendly alien of enemy origin, may present himself at a combined recruiting centre, and, provided that his bona fides can be established and he is in all other respects suitable, he may be accepted for service in the Royal Air Force for the duration of the war. Nationals of an Allied Power or of a country whose forces are serving in association with His Majesty's Forces are similarly eligible for entry in the Royal Air Force. These con-


ditions also apply to recruitment to the Women's Auxiliary Air Force.

BILLETING.

Mr. Dobbie: asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of meals a householder is expected to provide when an airman is billeted on a house and the payment is 10d. per night?

Captain Balfour: The rate of payment referred to by the hon. Member covers only lodging and attendance. If a householder is required to provide means, addiditional payment is made at prescribed rates.

GROUND DEFENCE DUTIES (VOLUNTEERS).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will give an option to, and encourage, men recruited for training as wireless-observers or air-gnners, but whose calling-up is delayed, to volunteer for service on the ground staff of the Royal Air Force during their period of waiting?

Captain Balfour: It is already the practice to inform attested candidates for training as pilot, air observer or wireless operator/air gunner, who cannot be accepted immediately for air crew training, that they may volunteer for employment on ground defence duties in the R.A.F. until such time as their training for air crew duties commences. The majority of candidates do in fact volunteer.

Mr. Gibson: If I give the Minister particulars of a case in which difficulties have been found, will he take action to facilitate the matter?

Captain Balfour: Certainly, Sir. I shall be glad to receive particulars of any case which the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to bring to my notice.

PRINCE VON STARHEMBERG.

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air where Prince von Starhemberg is serving at present; and what hours of flying service he had in France before seeking refuge in this country?

Captain Balfour: On grounds of security, it would not be in the public interest to disclose the location of any

particular unit of the Allied Forces or the technical qualifications and experience of personnel serving therein at home or overseas. In view, however, of the interest which has been displayed in this particular case I would tell the House that the Free French Headquarters have informed my Department that this officer is now under orders for posting to a Free French overseas unit at an early date.

Mr. Wedgwood: Are we to understand from that answer that he is no longer at the bar of the Ritz?

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Is it consonant with the spirit of tolerance and fair play for the right hon. Gentleman to put questions like this?

Mr. Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of the danger to this country arising from the fact that Prince von Starhemberg was a member of the Oberland Association, and is dependent financially upon his mother who is still in Austria, he will reconsider the pay and allowances made to him?

Captain Balfour: The pay and allowances of the officer referred to are those appropriate to his rank in the Free French Air Force, and I am not in a position to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Wedgwood: Is there not just the risk that if he gets up in an aeroplane, he will be taken over by Mussolini?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

WAR AIMS.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that the chairman of the committee set up in Oxford in connection with the work of the Department has complained that no details are available of the Minister's proposed campaign in favour of the publication of the Empire's war aims; and when is it proposed to issue any further information which would help those committees in carrying out the Minister's object?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have proposed no such campaign as that referred to in the Question The subject of war aims was dealt with in the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sit-


verman) on 15th October, and in the Debate which took place on the Adjournment on the same day.

Mr. Mander: Has not the Minister any further information with regard to the statement on war aims which, he said the other day, the Government were considering?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

Mr. Mander: When will you have?

BROADCASTING.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that at the present time, this country uses only five wavelengths for Broadcasting, whereas Germany had 40 stations which, including the countries which she now occupies, has increased to over 100 stations, a great number of which are far more powerful than any of the British broadcasting stations; and as it is easier for people in England to tune-in to a German broadcasting station than to a British, will he give urgent and immediate consideration to the whole question of broadcasting?

Mr. Cooper: The hon Member's comparisons between our own broadcasting resources and those under enemy control do not give an accurate statement of the position, but it is the case that Germans have a large preponderance of wavelengths at their command. The present system of transmission in this country has been designed to give the best possible service without at the same time affording valuable navigational aid to enemy aircraft. The fullest use and development of our wavelengths and stations, within the limitations imposed, is under constant review by the Ministry of Information, in consultation with the Air Ministry and the B.B.C., and we are all aware that there is scope for improvement. The German transmission is faced with similar problems and is frequently completely closed down.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that Greece is already complaining that all the wireless propaganda emanates from Germany and Italy; is it not also the fact that the B.B.C. services cannot reach Albania and Greece on the present broadcasting wavelength?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir, the last point is not the case. The B.B.C. can reach Albania and Greece; but it must be obvious to everybody that the Germans and Italians are in a very much better position to do so than is Great Britain, and that they have an opportunity of jamming our broadcasts. An attempt is made to reach the Near East from other stations.

Captain Plugge: Is not the Minister aware that the constitution of the B.B.C. precludes it from carrying out propaganda abroad and that, for the last 10 years, at international conferences it has urged that broadcasting should be for internal use only; therefore, that neither its machinery nor its equipment is satisfactory to carry out this type of work; and may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government make every effort in their power to increase our transmissions for foreign work, and in particular to Germany and the Baltic countries?

Captain Plugge: On a point of Order. May I not challenge a Minister upon his reply regarding the audibility of our broadcasting stations in Greece? The broadcasting hand channels at present used by the B.B.C. are not audible in the daylight in either Greece or Albania and at night can only be received on the most powerful sets situated in the most favourable positions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member can do so in a Supplementary Question, but he appeared to be making a statement and developing an argument, which can be done only in the course of debate.

Mr. Cooper: I can assure the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that we are fully aware of the importance of increasing our transmissions, and that every step is being taken to that end.

Mr. R. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that the Home Service programme is inaudible in Scotland?

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that British broadcasts suffer from jamming and that not only people at home, but


many countries on the Continent, particularly including ordinary French radio sets, are unable to pick up our programmes; and will he take steps to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr. Cooper: I am aware that the enemy attempts to jam certain of our broadcasts in foreign languages. There is evidence that these attempts are not wholly successful. Advice is frequently given to listeners in the countries affected, with the object of helping them to get the best possible reception of our programmes.

Sir F. Sanderson: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that there is a growing feeling among the people of this country and in France that the British Government should take greater advantage of the possibilities of broadcasting by considerably increasing the broadcasting facilities for talks and information, in view of the fact that throughout unoccupied France the great majority of the people are ignorant of what is, in fact, happening outside France; and will he consider instituting a more concentrated propaganda?

Mr. Cooper: The possibilities of broadcasting are limited by the number of transmitters available, and, despite the obvious importance of our broadcasts in France, more time cannot at present be given to them without damaging other essential services. In fact, seven quarter-hour news bulletins are broadcast daily to France and French overseas posses-while three further periods, amounting to one hour and a quarter, are devoted to talks and other material. Evidence is accumulating that these full and informative broadcasts are heard by a large number of people throughout the whole of France, despite the attempts of the enemy o make reception impossible. The broadcasting facilities at the disposal of the B.B.C. are being increased, so that in due course more will be possible.

Sir F. Sanderson: Is the Minister aware that I am receiving a large number of letters from all over the country complaining bitterly about our broadcasting, and will he give an assurance to the House that he will do all he can to improve it?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wavelength power at the disposal of the Germans in France is

equivalent to five times the amount of the broadcasting B.B.C. transmissions in their entirety, and, in view of the fact that our transmissions to France represent only 2 per cent. of the time of the B.B.C. transmission, will he tell the House why this safe-saving method of warfare is denied to our Fighting Services and our civilian population?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend. The House is, of course, aware that the Germans have at their disposal not only their own equipment but that of Belgium, Holland and France. Therefore, we are suffering at the present moment from a preponderance which it will take a long time to make good, but I can assure the House that everything is being done to increase the equipment at our disposal.

Sir P. Harris: Will the Minister consider appointing a committee to inquire into methods of improving the wavelength available for broadcasting, or the appointment of a special technical committee of experts to survey the whole problem?

Mr. Cooper: I will consider that possibility, but the matter is under continual survey by the best engineers in the country.

Sir Irving Albery: In view of the evident anxiety in this House over this important question of broadcasting, will the Minister welcome the opportunity at an early date of debating the whole question?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir, I have no objection.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that quality is the essential factor, and in order to get that factor, will he introduce some Marxian propaganda?

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken to build new broadcasting transmitters to counteract the propaganda from transmitting stations that have come under Nazi rule?

Mr. Cooper: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday by my hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery).

PENGUIN BOOKS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Information why the Penguin books, Dr. Shelrankar's "Problem of India" and "Extracts from Hansard," although allowed to circulate in this country, were not allowed to be sent to New York but returned to the sender?

Mr. Cooper: A postal packet containing the two particular publications to which the hon. Member refers was stopped by the Postal and Telegraph Censorship, in the interest of national security, and in pursuance of their Standing Regulations. "Extracts from Hansard" is not subject to any stop, but any postal packet stopped for other reasons is returned to the sender entire.

Mr. Sorensen: Why is it assumed in the case of the extract from Hansard that what is not subversive here might be dangerous in America? Are we to assume that "Extracts from Hansard" should not be circulated?

Mr. Cooper: I have endeavoured to explain in my answer that there is no opposition in regard to "Extracts from Hansard." When a postal packet is stopped, it is returned to the sender entire, and no part is taken out and sent on, but that is the only reason why an "Extracts from Hansard" was sent back.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand from that answer that the book "Problem of India" was held to be subversive?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Sorensen: Why may it be circulated here and not in America? Might this not have a very bad effect in America?

Mr. Cooper: I think it is undesirable that this book should be sent out of the country and that it should reach India. The publisher undertook that he would not export the book, and therefore it is obviously right that we should prevent its being exported by other people.

"R. P. WITNESS" (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that parcels addressed to Congregational agents in Northern Ireland of the

"R.P. Witness," a religious monthly published in Scotland, have been held up by the censorship for some months past; and whether he will give orders that these parcels be delivered forthwith, as the subscribers feel that they are being deprived of the magazine which is pro-British, without any reasonable cause?

Mr. Cooper: Printed matter can be exported to Northern Ireland only by the holder of a permit under Control of Communications Order (No. 5), 1940. It would appear that the persons interested in the "R.P. Witness" have not made the usual arrangement with their publisher for this purpose. If they will arrange with the publisher for the despatch of their copies under the permit which the publisher in fact holds, no difficulty should arise.

Dr. Little: If the publisher of the "R.P. Witness" makes that arrangement, will the parcels of this magazine be forwarded to Northern Ireland as many of my constituents are disappointed at the non-delivery of the magazine?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, they will be.

CRYSTAL PALACE.

Mr. Ammon: asked the Minister of Information why a negative reply to a request submitted on 16th October by the Crystal Palace trustees for permission to issue a statement to the Press was not given until 23rd October?

Mr. Cooper: The inquiry did not reach the Ministry until 18th October. Another Department had to be consulted and was not able to give a decision immediately. Telephonic communication was interrupted at the time, and thus attempts to reach the author of the inquiry by telephone, as he had requested, were not immediately successful.

LOSS OF STEAMSHIP "EMPRESS OF BRITAIN."

Mr. Ammon: asked the Minister of Information the reason for the delay in publishing the news of the disaster to the "Empress of Britain"?

Mr. Cooper: The "Empress of Britain" was bombed by enemy aircraft and set on fire about 8.30 a.m. on 26th October. She was taken in tow but was


torpedoed by a U-boat in the early morning of 28th October. She sank soon afterwards, and the sinking was announced by the Admiralty and War Office about 2 p.m. on the same day, as soon as the position regarding survivors was clear.

Mr. Ammon: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reply to the announcement made by the Admiralty to the German broadcast was tantamount to a denial of the sinking?

Mr. Cooper: I think the original announcement on the German wireless was inaccurate. They said they had sunk the ship when she was in fact on fire, and therefore the Admiralty had to wait until they knew all the facts before they could make a statement.

BOMBING OF NON-MILITARY OBJECTIVES, LONDON.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Information whether he will now publish for the information of world opinion, a list or catalogue of non-military objectives bombed in London up to the latest date considered desirable?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir. It is intended at the present stage to adhere to the policy of releasing for publication only the more notorious non-military objectives of importance which have been damaged or destroyed. The publication of a detailed list as suggested might well convey information useful to the enemy.

Major Milner: Could we not have a complete list up to whatever date is considered desirable of these notorious nonmilitary objectives? At the moment they are published in driblets, and would they not be more impressive if published in bulk?

Mr. Cooper: The question of security must take precedence. I can assure the House that if Germany published a list of objectives, it would be of the greatest value to us.

Major Milner: Would the right hon. Gentleman publish a complete list of those non-military objectives of which particulars have already been given? That would be very valuable.

Mr. Cooper: It would be very valuable to the enemy.

Major Milner: The right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding me. Would he collate and publish particulars of all those non-military objectives which have already been published?

Mr. Cooper: That I will certainly do.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman do that regarding Berlin as well?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AIR RAIDS (TELEPHONE SERVICE).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in telephonic communication throughout the country during the period of air-raids with vitally important food depôts and other depots connected with Government service, he will consider and confer with the Secretary of State for War with a view to the utilisation of personnel from the Royal Corps of Signals to take the place of, or supplement, the normal telephone operators, with a view to maintaining efficiency for the successful prosecution of the war?

The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Arrangements have already been made with the War Office on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. De la Bère: Would the right hon. Gentleman also consider the utilisation of engineers and technicians who have been called up and whose services would be of great benefit to his Department at the present time?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir; that matter has already been considered, and the arrangements are now in operation.

SUNDAY POSTAL FACILITIES, LONDON.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Postmaster-General whether letters posted in London in time for the Sunday afternoon collections are despatched on the same evening or the following morning?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: In general letters posted in London on Sundays for the collection made about 5.30 p.m. are despatched early next morning. There is, however, a collection between 1 p.m. and 3 p.m. from at least one box in each sub-district for despatch the same night.

Mr. Keeling: Does that reply mean that a letter posted after 5.30 on Saturday would not reach the provinces until Tuesday morning, and is it not misleading to have notices saying that the collection is at 5.30 on Sunday when in fact it is not dealt with until the following morning?

Mr. Morrison: If a letter is put into one of the prescribed boxes particulars of which appear in the London Post Office Guide, it will be taken the same night, but in the other case if it is posted later than 5.30 it will not be dealt with until next morning. The question of when it will reach its destination depends upon where the destination is.

Mr. Keeling: But my right hon. Friend implied that a letter posted after 5.30 on Saturday would not be dealt with until Monday.

Mr. Morrison: It would not be dealt with until Monday unless it was in one of those boxes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ALIENS (ENLISTMENT).

Miss Rathbone: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that there is considerable uncertainty as to the extent and conditions under which it is possible for aliens, whether belonging to Allied countries, neutral countries or friendly aliens of enemy origin, to join the Navy or any force auxiliary to it; and under what conditions can such aliens apply at recruiting offices with the hope that, if personally suitable, they will be accepted for enlistment distinguishing, if necessary, between the three groups indicated?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Full information on all the points raised by my hon. Friend can be obtained at any Combined Recruiting Centre. I am glad to say that the number of applications for entry into the Royal Navy greatly exceeds the requirements of the Service, except in a limited number of special categories. This means that every alien entered for the general branches excludes a British candidate. Only aliens with special qualifications are, therefore, accepted either as ratings or as candidates for temporary commissions. No aliens of enemy origin are entered. Polish, Norwegian, Dutch and French

nationals can apply for entry to their Naval Services operating with us.

Miss Rathbone: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that answer applies to the Women's Auxiliary to the Navy, or whether they can apply, as we have just been told they can in a similar branch of the other Services?

Mr. Alexander: I have not looked into that point, but I understand that as a general rule it would apply.

H.M.S. "GLORIOUS" (RAFTS).

Mr. Ammon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rafts of H.M.S. "Glorious" were equipped with automatic raft lights to enable them to be seen in the hours of darkness?

Mr. Alexander: A satisfactory automatic raft light had not been developed when H.M.S. "Glorious" was lost, but all ships had been directed to fit flares on their rafts. Supplies of automatic lights are now being made available for general issue.

Mr. Ammon: Does not my right hon. Friend know that an automatic light has been approved by the Ministry of Shipping and a Regulation issued?

Mr. Alexander: There is a further Question later on, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wait for the answer to that.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there exists on the market a type of lifebelt with an automatic light which operates when a man wearing it falls into the water, and would he consider equipping every man in the Royal Navy with this device?

Mr. Alexander: All those points have been fully considered during the past 12 months by a special Departmental Committee.

Miss Rathbone: Is it not the case that six months ago we were promised that automatic lights would be attached to all rafts and lifeboats, and were not the Ministry considering the question of attaching them to lifebelts? Are they not rather slow in providing this necessary equipment?

Mr. Alexander: I think that point arises on Question No. 37.

LIFE SAVING AT SEA COMMITTEE,

Mr. Adamson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) the composition of the Life Saving at Sea Committee, which is responsible for advising his Department on life-saving appliances; the general qualifications of its members for this duty; and whether it is a Departmental or representative committee;
(2) whether any consultations have taken place between the Life Saving at Sea Committee of his Department and the Ministry of Shipping with reference to approved types of automatic raft lights, so that additional safety at sea may be assured for the personnel of the Navy, especially during the long nights in winter months;
(3) The number of meetings held by the Life Saving at Sea Committee within the last three months; and whether he can take steps to facilitate their decisions on matters submitted to them for decision?

Mr. Alexander: The Life Saving at Sea Committee was a Departmental body appointed by the Board of Admiralty at the end of last year, under the chairmanship of a flag officer of wide experience. The four other members were representative of the technical departments chiefly concerned. The secretary was an engineer captain. The Committee consulted the Ministry of Shipping on the subject of raft lights. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there must be considerable differences in function and design between life-saving appliances for men of war and for merchant vessels. However, the fullest advantage was taken of the experience and resources of the Ministry of Shipping and of commercial firms. Some time was taken to approve designs for the Naval Service because of the desire to ensure that the Navy's special requirements were met, and that the technical difficulties inherent in such devices should he eliminated before production was started. Orders were placed at the beginning of August. The Committee completed its inquiries and was dissolved in the middle of September this year after making many recommendations. Most of these have now been put into effect. In order to save time, the Committee's business was conducted chiefly between the Chairman and the technical members mainly concerned. Few full meetings of the Committee were, therefore, necessary.

JAMAICA (NATIVE LEADER'S DETENTION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the grounds upon which the native leader in Jamaica, Bustamente, has been interned by the Governor; the place and proposed duration of internment; and when it is intended to bring the prisoner to trial?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The detention of Bustamente was ordered on 8th September because of his inflammatory utterances culminating, in spite of a personal warning from the Governor, in a speech inciting to bloodshed, racial war and revolution. He is detained in the same compound of the internment camp in Jamaica as other non-enemy internees who have been detained for security reasons, and receives the same treatment; and he will be detained for as long as is necessary in the interests of public security. Detention was ordered by the Governor under the Defence Regulations and he will not therefore be brought to trial. He has not made objection under the Regulations to his detention.

Mr. Adams: Does my right hon. Friend consider that it is in harmony with the traditions of this House that this man should not be brought to trial?

Mr. Riley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is publicly reported in Jamaica that Mr. Bustamente, some weeks before his arrest, visited the Governor of Jamaica and offered, as a leader of the natives, to use his influence to secure the co-operation of Jamaican labour in the war effort, and that that offer was turned down; and, if so, why was it turned down?

Mr. Hall: That is another question, but I understand that Mr. Bustamente and the Governor are personal friends. That does not, however, prevent Mr. Bustamente from making the type of speech to which I have referred, which placed the Governor under the necessity of taking the action which I have described.

Mr. Riley: I am fully aware of Mr. Bustamente's combustible politics; I know him personally, and I want to know whether his offer was turned down.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR VEHICLES (REQUISITIONING).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now take steps to utilise those powers which he possesses to recall into National Service all those motor vehicles to-day mobilised in sheds, barns and garages; and whether he will take steps to obtain the necessary powers and organise their use when and wherever most needed?

The Minister of Transport (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I can assure my hon. Friend that I have the necessary powers, and if and when it appears to me that conditions are becoming such as to warrant the step suggested by my hon. Friend, I shall not hesitate to use them.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend not realise that these motor vehicles might be of considerable benefit in easing the problem of coal transport, and will he not try utilising them for the distribution of coal throughout the country?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I have the matter in view.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise that the coal situation is very serious?

Sir F. Sanderson: Is it not true that the general public have responded magnificently to all the appeals made to them by my right hon. Friend?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: That is true.

POTATOES (TRANSIT).

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the alarm caused among farmers by his Order restricting the full protection from frost given to seed potatoes in transit and the conflict between his Order and the desires of the Ministry of Food; and what steps he proposes to take to guard against the probable severe losses of potato crops from the results of his Order?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 23rd October to a Question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Maryhill Division of Glasgow (Mr. Davidson). My right hon.

Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture are considering the possibility of giving advice to potato growers and all concerned on the steps that should be taken to protect potatoes from frost now that only one sheet can be provided.

RAILWAYS (EXPENDITURE).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Transport the present rate of annual expenditure of the railways; how much of this is wages and salaries; and how these figures compare with those prior to the war?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

LIFE OF PARLIAMENT (MEMBERS AND ELECTORS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extension of the life of the present Parliament recently agreed to by this House without consulting the electorate, he will take steps to ensure that, where the electorate in the constituency wish to terminate the five-year contract entered into with their Member at the last general election they can do so at the end of the five-year period by petition, or memorial to Mr. Speaker, who could be then authorised to declare the seat vacant?

Mr. Wedgwood: Before this Question is answered, may I ask whether it is correct to say that there is a five-year contract between a Member of this House and his constituents?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): To speak of the election of a Member as a "five-year contract" between the Member and his constituents is not, I think, an apt description of the constitutional position. Parliament for reasons which are well known and were discussed in the recent Debate decided to prolong the life of the present Parliament and I do not think it would be practicable or desirable to graft on to that decision the proposal put forward in the Question.

Sir T. Moore: With great reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I do not consider this reply satisfactory, and I propose at an early date to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

SUBSTITUTE ESPARTO PAPER, SCOTLAND.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Supply whether, in view of the abundant supplies of substitute esparto paper in Scotland, he will modify the restrictions imposed on the use of paper by Paper Order, No. 20, and otherwise, and thereby relieve the depression and unemployment in the printing trade in Scotland.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): As I informed the right hon. and gallant Member for Northern Midlothian (Lieut.-Col. Colville) yesterday, the supplies of home-produced paper-making materials enable some of the restrictions on the use of paper made from those materials to be relaxed for a time. An Order for that purpose has been made and comes into force to-day.

Mr. Gibson: While I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply, which will give lively satisfaction in Scotland, will he take steps to encourage the alternative use of this substitute esparto paper?

Sir A. Duncan: That is the object of this Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

BANANAS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware that on 1st October 2,500 bunches of bananas in good condition were loaded into barges and taken cut to sea for destruction; for what purpose this food waste was carried out; and whether he will prosecute those responsible?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): I have been asked to reply. I have made inquiries and have ascertained that these bananas did not arrive in good condition, but were found on arrival to be quite unfit for human consumption and were condemned by the medical officer of health. The latter part of the Question therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Gallacher: If I am able to provide the Minister with information that the bananas were quite eatable, will he be prepared to take action?

FLOUR (RESERVES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food

whether, in view of the dangers of air bombardment, he will now consider repairing and putting into working order the disused mills throughout the country and bringing them back into activity; and whether, with a view to improving the country's larder, he will encourage householders throughout the country to hold a 140-lb. bag of flour, with a view to its utilisation for home baking in the event of an emergency and as a war precaution?

Major Lloyd George: As a precautionary measure steps have already been taken to bring certain disused mills into production, and further action on these lines will he taken if the need arises. As regards the latter part of the Question, ample flour reserves are being maintained by the Ministry and by flour millers in all parts of the country. My Noble Friend does not, therefore, consider it desirable to extend household reserves to the extent that my hon. Friend suggests, but he would be glad if all consumers who are able to do so would maintain an emergency reserve equivalent to one week's normal requirements.

Mr. De la Bère: Can my right hon. Friend tell me under what authority certain statements have been made by officials of the Ministry of Food to the Press regarding the possible price of bread and other matters, and will he draw the attention of the Minister of Food to this very undesirable practice that goes on?

ONIONS (IMPORT).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has any statement to make as to the omission to arrange for the importation of a sufficient supply of onions?

Major Lloyd George: As my hon. Friend is aware, the main source of our imported onion supplies at this season of the year is the Netherlands, and these supplies are not at present obtainable. It is not possible to make good more than a proportion of the deficiency from other sources, but every effort is being made to obtain such alternative supplies as are available.

Sir H. Williams: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend what power he has in the event of some of the shopkeepers withholding these onions and not exposing them for sale? What remedy have we?

EGGS (MAXIMUM PRICE) ORDER (PROSECUTIONS).

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has had his attention drawn to the recent prosecution of Scottish firms in the egg trade when Max Schonbach, Benjamin Brazil, James McGreed, and others were fined for contravening the Eggs (Maximum Price) Order; and will he state the names of the Irish firms who were partners in the offences and whether they will be prosecuted?

Major Lloyd George: My noble Friend is not prepared to disclose the names of firms which may be implicated in future proceedings, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that investigations into the dealings of certain, firms in regard to eggs are proceeding, and that prosecutions will be instituted in appropriate cases.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: Does my hon. and gallant Friend realise that the trivial fines that have been inflicted upon these people for fraud upon the public are not likely to act as a deterrent to these rugged and hardy clansmen?

FISH (PRICE).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the great rise in the price of fish during the past year; and whether, in view of the large profits made by foreign trawlers bringing fish to this country, he will consider controlling the price of fish, and at the same time reimposing the 10 per cent. ad valorem tax on all fish landed at British ports by foreign trawlers?

Major Lloyd George: My noble Friend is aware that the price of fish has risen greatly, and he is at present considering the question of imposing a price control. He is unable to agree, however, that the present would be an opportune time for re-imposing the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty on foreign imports.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there is very considerable irony in the sending to the Press by the Minister of Information of examples of menus including fish which it is beyond the power of working-class people to buy? Fish prices are inordinately high.

Major Lloyd George: That point is being considered.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that a lot of housewives call this 8 o'clock breakfast stuff twaddle and cannot manage it at all?

COAL SUPPLIES, MANCHESTER.

Mr. Radford: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, since his circular letter to local authorities of 12th July last, only 120 tons of coal have been received by the Manchester Corporation under the Government's stocking scheme for Manchester, as compared with an average weekly winter consumption in that city of not less than 30,000 tons; and what steps he is taking, in conjunction with the Ministry of Transport, to expedite deliveries to Manchester?

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. David Grenfell): I am well aware that, owing to the heavy demand from consumers for stocking, the margin of supplies available for putting into Government dumps in Manchester has hitherto bet n small, and I am taking steps, in consultation with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Shipping which should result in increased deliveries. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on 23rd October.

Mr. Radford: In view of my hon. Friend's explanation that the London Midland and Scottish Railway was unable to deliver these extra quantities of coal, how is it, since we control the railways, that we cannot order the London Midland and Scottish to carry the additional coal needed?

Mr. Grenfell: I am afraid I cannot satisfy my hon. Friend on this occasion. There are conditions which are very difficult for all traffic working.

Mr. Radford: Is it not a fact that Manchester is in the centre of a great coal-producing area, with Lancashire, Nottingham and Yorkshire all within reasonable reach?

Mr. Batey: Is it not a disgrace that this state of affairs should prevail when there are thousands of miners out of work?

Mr. Grenfell: I do not know whether it is to be described as a disgrace. If so, I am not responsible for it.

Mr. Thorne: Has the Minister power to deal with the question of stocking?

Mr. Grenfell: The position in regard to stocking generally is not as bad as seems to be assumed. There are very considerable stocks, even in Manchester. It is not true that the fact that the Government have been stocking coal indicates that there is any shortage. There are enormous reserves of coal in this country. Government stocking was left until the last, in order that private supplies could be filled up. There are very substantial stocks in every town in this country.

Sir P. Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman co-operate very closely with the Minister of Transport, in order to ensure that where coal is available transport shall be found?

Mr. Grenfell: There is the closest co-operation between the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Shipping, and myself. A special committee has been set up to deal with this question, and we are achieving important results.

Mr. Tinker: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity of making a statement to the House on the whole position?

Mr. Grenfell: I shall he very glad indeed to do so.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (RENT ALLOWANCE).

Mr. Radford: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that where a person is receiving public assistance and also a rent allowance, the latter has to be paid direct to the person concerned and not to the landlord, and that, in some cases, the tenant retains the money and does not use it to pay his or her rent, which constitutes a fraud on the public assistance committee; and whether he will take steps to have this prevented by the rent allowance being paid direct to the landlord?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): Yes, Sir. The Relief Regulation Order prohibits a public assistance authority from paying the rent of a recipient of relief direct to the landlord. There would be strong objections to such an arrangement, and my right hon. Friend is not prepared to amend the Order in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Radford: Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact disclosed in the Question, that there have been gross cases of misappropriation of money by people to whom these allowances have been paid?

Miss Horsbrugh: While my right hon. Friend realises the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, the fact remains that the money must be paid by the relieving authority direct to the applicant and that ordinary proceedings can be taken by the landlord against the tenant if the rent is not paid.

Sir F. Sanderson: Does my hon. Friend not consider that the average landlord is well able to take care of himself?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

ELDERLY PEOPLE (EVACUATION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of numbers of elderly people, some suffering from infirmities, who are still remaining in areas subject to nightly air-raids and who cannot leave their district because they are unable to find accommodation elsewhere; and whether he is giving particular attention to this aspect of the problem with a view to securing suitable accommodation and meeting the entire cost of their removal thereto?

Mr. Woods: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by many elderly people in the London area in finding any accommodation in reception areas, and that they are consequently compelled to remain in London; and, in view of this, will he consider extending the present scheme, so as to provide billets for the aged and infirm people now resident in the London area?

Miss Horsbrugh: The arrangements already made for the evacuation of the aged and infirm include those people in the London evacuation areas and in certain coastal towns who can make their own arrangements to be received in a reception or a neutral area; those homeless people who are willing to be removed from emergency rest centres to hospitals and then to homes on the outskirts of London; and those in need of medical and nursing care who habitually make use of air-raid shelters in the whole of the metropolitan boroughs and in East Ham


and West Ham. The evacuation of all elderly people as a general class would not be practicable in view of the very special problems of accommodation, care and maintenance involved. My right hon. Friend is, however, anxious to provide such further facilities as may be practicable with the assistance of voluntary organisations and the local authorities, though it will be appreciated that the amount that can be done will be limited by the accommodation available.

Mr. Sorensen: In view of the fact that numbers of these elderly people are suffering very great hardship, through having to spend the best part of the hours of darkness in the shelters, could there not be some special scheme for them?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, from the end of my reply, the difficulty of finding accommodation in the country. Many Members of this House have pressed us to increase the evacuation areas. It is a question of the number of people in the priority classes to be taken out and the amount of accommodation which is to be found in the reception areas.

Mr. Messer: Has the hon. Lady considered the possibility of taking over big mansions and houses in the country, and using them for the chronic cases with which we are finding difficulty?

Miss Horsbrugh: We have already taken many of the chronic cases to large houses on the outskirts of London. I think the hon. Member will realise that a number of large mansions are used for Service needs and the needs of those employed on work of national importance have also to be considered. It is not so easy to get this accommodation.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Would it not be possible for the empty Emergency Medical Service hospitals to be temporarily used for the aged and infirm, until they are wanted for other purposes?

Miss Horsbrugh: There is not a large number of empty E.M.S. hospitals. They are already being used for such purposes as this, and temporarily for other schemes of evacuation.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Does the hon. Lady think it wise for the Government to

make these promises to the old people over the radio, when the accommodation is not forthcoming?

Miss Horsbrugh: Of course, I am not responsible for the announcements made on the radio. But if the hon. Lady will look at the reply I have given, she will see that it is very carefully laid down—in fact, it has been announced on the wireless—that there are evacuation schemes for particular categories of the aged and infirm. My right hon. Friend cannot give an assurance that the majority of the aged people in London, or in other areas in this country, can be removed to reception areas.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: What does the hon. Lady mean by saying that, as a Minister, she is not responsible for what goes over the radio?

Miss Horsbrugh: Perhaps I have not regarded myself, as a junior Minister, as being responsible to such a great extent as the responsibilities of junior Ministers are looked upon by some other people. As the hon. Lady informed me, an announcement was made on the radio that was not considered to be in complete agreement with the policy stated here by my right hon. Friend. I do not think that I should be held responsible for that wireless statement, since the reply I have given sets out the Government's policy at present for the aged and infirm.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Lady aware that a large number of houses are not being used, because the owners have locked them up and gone away?

Miss Horsbrugh: I can assure the hon. Member that many of those houses are earmarked for special purposes, and have been held in readiness for those purposes. That is why the owners have gone away.

Mr. Messer: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Duke of Bedford's hospital, fitted out for patients, is being used by the Foreign Office for their clerks?

Miss Horsbrugh: There are certain temporary arrangements being made in the hospitals. At present we have more than sufficient hospital accommodation throughout the country, and in certain cases, where it is convenient, the hospitals are being used for other purposes.

PUBLIC SHELTER, LEYTON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the borough of Leyton is now included in evacuation schemes and facilities and in respect of the improvement of protection in the same manner as the neighbouring borough of West Ham; and whether he has made, or will make, arrangements for the usage of further portions of the tunnels, together with the provision of lighting, now used by a large number of people at night Who are citizens of Leyton and neighbouring districts?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Home Security (Miss Wilkinson): So far as shelter protection is concerned, Leyton is in identically the same position as is West Ham. My hon. Friend's reference to tunnels relates, I take it, to the eastern extension of the tube; my information is that, except for a part which is reserved for other purposes, all suitable sections are used for shelter and that the lighting arrangements are being improved. As regards evacuation, the general facilities for the evacuation of mothers with children are at present confined to the administrative County of London, together with East and West Ham.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend say why there should be this discrimination made between areas like West Ham and Leyton, when both areas are being subjected to just as much damage; and is she aware that the whole of the available space has not been used in the way that she apparently believes? I was there last night, and I can assure her that it is not so.

Miss Wilkinson: With regard to the planning arrangements being of a different kind, the matter is one of longstanding Home Office policy, and questions upon that subject should be referred to my right hon. Friend. I know exactly how every part of the tunnelling is being used, and my information is really more accurate than the individual examination of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask my hon. Friend again why there should be this discrimination between two areas, both of them equally affected and contiguous to each other, and will she use her

influence to see that the borough of Leyton is included along with the boroughs of East Ham and West Ham?

Miss Wilkinson: I can assure my hon. Friend that my knowledge of the different sections of London is not as large as his. He has had much greater experience than I have, and perhaps he will therefore address any question on that point to my right hon. Friend on the next Sitting day, which is the Home Office day.

RAILWAY ACCIDENT, NORTON FITZWARREN.

Lieut.-Colonel Wickham: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the accident to the 9.50 p.m. Paddington-Penzance express which occurred near Taunton in the early hours of 4th November?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: I am informed that this unfortunate accident occurred at 3.52 a.m. on 4th November at Norton Fitzwarren, just beyond Taunton. The night was dark and it was raining heavily at the tune. The 9.50 p.m. express passenger train from London to Penzance travelling on the down relief line, was de-railed at the catch points protecting the down main line at this junction. I deeply regret to say that, so far as can he ascertained at present, some 24 persons are known to have been killed and 59 injured, 20 of them seriously. I am sure that the House will wish to join with me in expressing sincere sympathy with the relatives of those involved in this accident, and also with those who have sustained injury. I understand that there is no evidence to indicate that the accident was in any way due to defective track, sabotage or enemy action. A newspaper train travelling on the down main line at the time neither contributed to the cause nor the seriousness of the accident. I have appointed Leut-Colonel Mount, Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, to hold a full inquiry into all the circumstances.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Douglas Lloyd Savory, Esquire, for the Queen's University of Belfast.

DETENTION OF A MEMBER.

Sir William Davison: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you inform the House as to the reason for the delay in submitting to the House the report of the Committee of Privileges with regard to the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles and Southern (Captain Ramsay) which was sent to the printers some three weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that a Question on that matter has been put down for the next Sitting day.

HOUSEHOLD MEANS TEST.

The Prime Minister: I have received questions and inquiries from all the three parties in the House, and in consequence I should like to make a short statement regarding the review that has been made by the Government of the household means test for unemployment assistance and supplementary pensions. The Government have given an immense amount of consideration to this matter. We have all represented so many different points of view and have all arrived at a united conclusion. The Government intend to introduce legislation to enable them to give effect to certain changes designed to remove causes of complaint against the existing means test. The test will become one of personal need, and will be based on the following principles: the needs and resources of the applicant will continue to be aggregated with those of his wife and of any dependants, but the resources of any other member of the household will no longer be aggregated with those of the applicant. If the applicant is the householder, a standard contribution by non-dependent members of his household towards rent and other overheads, will be assumed and taken into account as part of the applicant's resources. This means that inquiry will normally be limited to the needs and resources of the applicant, his wife and dependants. If the applicant is not a householder, and is living with relations, regard will be had to the constitution and circumstances of the home in assessing his personal needs, but inquiry into the resources of other members of the household will in any case be greatly reduced and will often be unnecessary. No applicant without resources of his own will be left dependent on other

members of the household for means to buy clothing and other necessary personal requirements. The Government have asked the Assistance Board to work out the detailed application of these principles in the case both of unemployment assistance and of supplementary pensions in order that they may be in a position to submit draft Regulations as soon as the necessary legislation has been passed.

Mr. Thorne: Will not the right hon. Gentleman have difficulty in finding out what are the needs?

Mr. Graham White: Can the Prime Minister say whether the proposal Is limited to supplementary pensions and unemployment assistance and that it has no relation to the position of the Poor Law?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that assumption is correct.

Mr. White: May I express the profound satisfaction of my right hon. and hon. Friends on these benches for the change that has been made?

Mr. Bevan: In view of past experience, would the Prime Minister consider giving the House more facilities than existing procedure permits when the draft Regulations are before the House? The draft Regulations are based on legislation, but that will not give the House proper opportunity of considering and amending in detail the nature of the Regulations. Experience shows that most administrative difficulties arise from the fact: that the House has had no opportunity of guiding the Assistance Board in these matters. Can there be an alteration?

The Prime Minister: I think it is probably considered all the world over an extremely remarkable fact that we are able to carry on our regular and long-valued procedure in the House under conditions which obviously, from time to time, enforce themselves upon every Member, and I do not feel at the moment that this is the time to embark on even more elaborate procedure than that which we are trying, under so many difficulties, to carry through.

Mr. Bevan: It is not a matter of making procedure more difficult. Experience has gone to show that large sums of money are spent and difficulties arise because the House has not given sufficient detailed


guidance to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and the procedure of those Regulations will not permit the House to do so. Is there not a case for alteration?

The Prime Minister: That was the point to which I endeavoured to address myself.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that there was given to the House some time ago a pledge about the exemption from even the personal needs test of a certain limit of savings and that subsequently a Bill was introduced in this House, designed to carry out the pledge, but was withdrawn because the House did not think it did carry it out. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when that matter will be dealt with?

The Prime Minister: There will have to be a Bill, and that Bill will have to pass through all stages, including the Financial Resolution, and that will be the opportunity when questions like the one which was raised by the hon. Member can be thrashed out.

Mr. Silverman: Is there a possibility that a Bill will be so drafted as to deal with this matter?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that to e have not yet reached the stage of casting a Bill into draft, but I have been talking with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer this morning, and he hopes that in a few weeks a Bill will be before Parliament.

Mr. Mander: Is it intended to proceed with the Determination of Needs Bill as well?

The Prime Minister: That is at the present time being considered.

Mr. Lawson: Where more serious mistakes have been made by the House is through not having power to amend these Regulations, and—

Mr. Speaker: I think sufficient questions have already been put to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Batey: May I ask a question on the statement of the Prime Minister? He said it was to be a personal needs test. Does that include a man and his wife? The Prime Minister seemed to me to

include the family and not other members of the household. Are we to understand that the Prime Minister means that the incomes of members of the family will be included but not other members?

The Prime Minister: The statement was most carefully drafted, and I think it would be wise to read it first.

Mr. McGovern: Will this Bill be introduced before Christmas so that its benefits, if any, will come to applicants before then?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It will certainly be introduced before then.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The Prime Minister: I have a short statement to make on Business. I take this opportunity to inform the House that we desire to obtain the Committee stage of the Supplementary Estimates on supplementary pensions, the Government of India Order and other formal Business not later than 3 o'clock to-day. I hope this course will be agreeable to the House. I then propose that we should go into Secret Session in order that I can make a statement on the future sittings of the House.

Mr. Mander: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to arrange, on occasions of important Debates, such as yesterday, for some Minister, not necessarily himself, to be present so that we can have a reply at the end of the Debate? A number of important speeches were made in the House yesterday, and no Minister attempted to reply.

The Prime Minister: The Lord President of the Council was here all the time.

Mr. Mander: But he did not speak.

The Prime Minister: Between listening and speaking there is a gulf, and the gulf does not diminish in width during the progress of the war.

Mr. Mander: Would the Prime Minister be willing to consider asking a Minister not only to listen but to speak?

The Prime Minister: Everything that has to be said has to be very carefully considered—also not only what is said but what is left out. I have no doubt that if I had been able to be present here


all the time yesterday, I might perhaps have uttered a few remarks at the end, but I doubt very much whether that would have added to the information.

HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I beg to give notice that I intend on the next Sitting day to bring before your notice, Mr. Speaker, the inability of Members of this House to receive the OFFICIAL REPORT, particularly in view of the fact that we had assurances some weeks ago on this matter and that inconveniences have been caused.

HOME GUARD (STATUS AND ROLE)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House to make a short statement on the Home Guard. The Army Council has had the rôle and requirements of the Home Guard under careful review and has taken decisions which I desire to submit to the House. The Prime Minister has said that the Home Guard are as much a part of the Army as the Grenadier Guards. That statement was no mere compliment; it was a declaration in terms which no one can mistake of the military status and value of the Force. The Home Guard consists, it is true, of soldiers raised to fight in small detachments near their homes, without that organisation into mobile battalions, brigades and divisions which is necessary for a regular Field Force. But its military value for the important purposes which it serves is in no way impaired—on the contrary, it is in some ways enhanced—by its special character as an auxiliary part-time force.
In this character it is essential to our defence system for the duration of the war, and we desire on that account to give its organisation, which has hitherto been largely provisional in character, a firmer and more permanent shape. But the House will, I am sure, agree that in doing this we should not seek to alter its local and friendly character. Though this is a deeply united country, it is immensely various; and the Home Guard reflects its almost infinite variety of habit and type. That home-bred quality must not be impaired in order to secure the uniformity

and organisation which are necessary for armed forces of other sorts. We want the Home Guard to have a military status as unimpeachable as that of any Corps or Regiment; we want it also to be equipped with an administrative system which provides for its requirements without too much formality or what is called "red tape"; we want it, finally, to have all the opportunity of further training for which it asks. But we do not want it to be trained or strained beyond its powers as a voluntary spare-time Force.
First, then, as to its rôle and the training required for it. The Home Guard exists for home defence in the most literal sense. Its members have joined up in order to give to the defence of their own localities all the time which they can spare, by hard living, from their normal work. Its military rôle is, in fact, to reinforce the defences of the country by providing local garrisons for communications, vulnerable places and key-points, as also by giving timely notice of enemy movement to the commanders of mobile troops. With the longer nights, when normal employment over-runs both dawn and dusk, it cannot maintain its summer standard of vigilance. There should, however, be no difficulty in reducing the calls upon it during the winter months. Where the task of a section is to defend a locality in exposed conditions, it need only be held in readiness to man its posts at short notice, should the emergency arise. Watches, in-lying pickets and patrols can be limited to such as can be maintained on a shift system by those who can afford the time. Needless picketing or patrolling should be discouraged, and attention turned to training instead. A simple manual for Home Guard training has already been issued. Much of it can be carried out under cover, and authority has been given for renting or otherwise obtaining the accommodation required. Exercises can be carried out at week-ends when the members of a unit are free to take part in them.
I would add that the training of the Force is not as uniform in principle at the present moment as it ought to be; there are places such as factories and the central area of some cities where its rôle has not as yet been adequately worked out. Within certain broad limits its duties must vary from place to place; but those limits should be scrupulously observed, and every section should be clearly apprised of the duty for which it is needed


and for which it should train. Drills and parades are not as essential to the training of Home Guard units as they are to that of Regular troops, though Home Guards, like all other good troops, like turning out occasionally for a church parade or other ceremony and marching for all to admire behind a band. That does good to everyone. Nor is the Home Guard intended to organise or train for mobile action on any but the most limited scale. The highly laudable military zeal of local leaders in these directions may at times have outrun its proper rôle. The higher commanders should watch and, where necessary, check such tendencies, in order that the strength and contentment of the Force may not be impaired.
I think, Sir, that the House and the Home Guard itself will be satisfied with this broad definition of its winter rôle. I would, however, add two things. In the first place, we are providing for the training of instructors and leaders, and have for that purpose taken over the school started with much public spirit by Mr. Edward Hutton at Osterley, with the Osterley staff. In the second place, we recognise that compensation should be paid for loss of wages, if the Home Guard is called out for whole time emergency service, which prevents its members from doing their normal work, under direct orders from the higher Regular Command. Such compensation would if the occasion arises be subject to the same limitations and conditions generally speaking as apply in the case of the Civil Defence Services.
I come now to the questions of status, administration and command, which are to some extent intertwined. Operational command of the Home Guard is vested in the Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, who exercises it through the regular Commands. This arrangement is, of course, essential, since the Home Guard is an indispensable element in the system of military defence for which the Commander-in-Chief is responsible. On the administrative side, however, this new Force, which is five or six times as large as the peace-time Territorial Army, is in our opinion now entitled to a Director-General and a fully equipped directorate of his own. We have therefore decided that the Inspector-General on the staff of the Commander-in-Chief shall be replaced by a Director-General, Home Guard, who

will have his headquarters in the War Office and will bring together the administrative staff which has hitherto worked partly under Sir Alan Brooke and partly under Sir John Brown. There will still, however, be an Inspector-General as well as a Director-General of the Force, and that post of Inspector-General will be filled by General Lord Gort, who will combine it with the other duties already entrusted to him.
Not less important is the question of rank. At present, as the House knows, there are no ranks in the Force, but only appointments with unfamiliar titles to various ranges of command. This is not an altogether satisfactory arrangement, though, thanks to the Home Guard itself, it has served for a period of emergency very well. Its defects are obvious, and I need only summarise them very briefly. In the first place, the fact that under this arrangement Home Guard commanders are only private soldiers vis-a-vis the officers, warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the Regular Army imposes upon them and also upon the higher Regular Command a disability which might prove serious. This is no mere question of punctilio. The Home Guard numbers in its ranks many officers of wide experience in the three Armed Services; and the Commander-in-Chief has drawn attention to the fact that one of these might very well be the most reliable commander of troops in his locality, should that Locality find itself isolated in the mixed fighting which an invasion or an air-landing might produce. Unless, however, that Home Guard commander held an active commission of some sort, he could not be placed in command of any but Home Guard troops and would in fact be subordinate to any Regular officer or non-commissioned officer who happened to be on the spot. In the view of the Army Council and also of the Commander-in-Chief this very serious limitation to the responsibility which may be laid upon Home Guard commanders should be removed; but that is impossible under the Army Act unless Home Guard commanders are granted King's Commissions in some form. Some such change is therefore essential if the country is to have full value from the first-rate soldierly material which the creation of the Home Guard has mobilised.
In the second place it is a constitutional rule in this country, long safeguarded by this House, that all commanders of armed forces should be bound by a definite responsibility to the State—that is, to the King in Parliament. To fix that responsibility there must be some commission or charge which sets it out in terms. Last but far from least is the matter of custom and sentiment. Members of the Home Guard are using the familiar military titles for their commanders, despite the Army Council Instruction setting out the list of unfamiliar titles by which those commanders are supposed to go. It is, indeed, natural to assume that a Force which forms part of the Army should be commanded by colonels, captains and corporals, as the rest of the Army is; and we have had strong evidence from all ranks of the Home Guard that it will never feel assured of full and unassailable military status while these familiar ranks and titles are denied.
All these, Sir, are potent arguments, and they have overcome our anxiety lest the militarisation of the Home Guard in this way should impair its present informality and introduce an undesirable rigidity into the relations of officers, non-commissioned officers and men. We are, indeed, satisfied that the necessary change can be made without consequences of that kind. His Majesty has therefore been pleased to direct that King's Commissions shall be granted to all approved commanders in the Home Guard, and that the Force shall also have a suitable complement of warrant and non-commissioned ranks. The commissioned, warrant and non-commissioned officers will bear the traditional titles of their rank. The necessary Order-in-Council will in due course be laid before the House, and a full statement on the nature of the proposed commissions will then be made. The commissions will be commissions in the Home Guard and normally limited to the exercise of command over Home Guard troops; but they will enable the higher Regular Command to place Home Guard officers in command of all troops, Regular or other, in any given locality should a specific emergency require. They will also define the Home Guard officer's responsibility to the King in Parliament, and they will carry with them the military titles traditional for each rank. But those

will be the only changes which they will introduce. The conditions of service in which volunteers are enrolled will not be altered at all. For example, officers will have no rights to disability pensions other than those obtaining for private soldiers; they will have no power of summary punishment; and discipline will depend, as at present, upon the team spirit of all ranks. We are indeed satisfied with the informal but effective discipline now ruling in the Force. It breathes the spirit of the old train-bands, and we do not wish to impair that democratic and very British spirit in any way.
I would, in conclusion, deal briefly with equipment and finance. The present grant of £1 per head was provisional and has proved unsatisfactory in some respects. The cost of transport, training accommodation and subsistence allowance varies greatly from county to county and cannot therefore be fairly met out of a capitation grant which is per head the same for all. We propose accordingly that these shall be dealt with separately. The new capitation grant will be limited to clerical assistance and miscellaneous charges such as typewriters, postage, stationery and telephones. For these purposes, which are all important now that the Home Guard is taking permanent form, we hope to give the County Associations not only adequate funds but reasonable discretion in the use of them.
As for equipment, a very considerable range is now on issue to the Home Guard. I need not trouble the House with all the items on the list, but will confine myself to the most important, namely, arms and uniform. Rifles, automatic rifles, machine-guns and grenades will very shortly be available for the Home Guard on a scale which represents full armament for 1,000,000 men. Discrimination has, of course, had to be exercised in the issue of these arms, not only between area and area, but also between Horne Guards enrolled for general duty in their locality and Factory Guards, since the latter are organised in numerous watches and could not make adequate use of a full complement of arms; but we hope to complete the issue before long. With regard to uniform, battle-dress is being issued on a large scale and will before long be available for the whole Force; denims will be withdrawn. Greatcoats cannot be supplied in adequate numbers before the winter comes on, and we have therefore arranged


for a large issue of trenchcapes, a warm and serviceable garment made of waterproofed service serge. There has been a serious shortage of steel helmets for the Home Guard at a time when they were urgently required, and we realize how galling this has been, particularly since the Civil Defence Services, which were earlier in the field, have been fully supplied. But my right. hon. Friend the Minister of Supply has made new arrangements, and we hope for a much larger weekly issue in the near future.
I hope the House will forgive me for inflicting these details upon it. All are of importance to the efficiency and contentment of the Home Guard, which richly deserves all the consideration that Parliament and the War Office can give it. Never was a Force so formidable more quickly or more cheaply raised. Sir, the debt owed by this country in recent weeks to many sections of its population, city dwellers and industrial workers no less than those who carry arms, is beyond compute; but no section has rendered finer service than those who, through the length and breadth of the country, have given their energy and ability to the organisation of this Force, and given them without stint. The War Office makes no claim to the achievement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's appeal did not create, it simply released, a pent desire for service which has given us more than three times the numbers at which we aimed. From end to end of the land patriotic men have devoted time, pains and in many cases private resources as well to the manifold needs of the Force. We hope by these new arrangements to show that the high value of their services is recognised by the State.

Mr. Lawson: I am sure the House has heard with considerable satisfaction the hon. Gentleman's statement on this very valuable Force. I should like to ask him whether it is intended to bring more actively into the organisation that important section of the Home Guard known as the Factory Guards. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the equipment and training of the Factory Guards leaves very much to be desired, and that there is great dissatisfaction among the men because they feel they are considered as guards of special enterprises rather than as members of the Home Guard?

Sir E. Grigg: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. We are extremely anxious that Factory Guards should not be regarded merely as guards of private enterprise, but as guards over the safety of their locality, and steps will certainly be taken to see that that principle is carried out.

Sir P. Harris: I wish to ask the Patronage Secretary whether we may have a very early opportunity of discussing this important and most comprehensive statement, which ought to be the subject of a full Debate?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): Certainly, if it is the wish of the House that there should be a Debate on this subject, the Government will do their best to provide for it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: Will my hon. Friend have his statement printed in pamphlet form and issued to all ranks of the Home Guard, as I think it will give them very great satisfaction?

Sir E. Grigg: I will consider that.

Mr. Bellenger: With reference to the hon. Gentleman's remark that the Home Guard are as much an integral part of the Army as the Grenadier Guards, does this foreshadow any change in the terms of service?

Sir E. Grigg: No, Sir. I said that there will be no change in the terms of service.

Mr. Bellenger: I was referring to the notice they can give when they want to leave the Service.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Prolongation of Parliament Act, 1940.

Clyde Lighthouses Consolidation Order Confirmation Act, 1940.

Fife County Council Order Confirmation Act, 1940.

HOME GUARD (STATUS AND ROLE).

Mr. Silverman: I should like to join with others in congratulating the Joint Under-Secretary on the statement he has made. I am sure it has been received in the House and in the country with great satisfaction. However, I should like to ask him a question which has not so far been raised. Is there anywhere in existence anything which defines who it is who can join the Home Guard, and who it is who has the right to refuse an applicant? A great many of us in the House—I am sure I am not alone in the experience—have from time to time had complaints, either that men who have seemed to be fully qualified to join have been refused admittance when they applied, or that men who have been taken into the Home Guard and have seemed to give great satisfaction to everybody have been asked to resign, the reason sometimes being given and sometimes not—sometimes it is because a man is suspected of belonging to, or does belong to, a political party which is unpopular.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to the question before the House.

Mr. Silverman: I should like to mention just one instance. It is the notorious case, about which questions were asked in this House, of a man who had won a V.C. in the last war, who was not allowed to join the Home Guard because one of his parents was not British-born. Can it be shown who it is who has the right to join the Home Guard, and with whom lies the discretion of vetoing applicants?

Sir E. Grigg: I quite agree that the system has not worked altogether satisfactorily. We have been very much concerned about that. We are going into it and I hope we shall be able to clear up any difficulties.

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister mentioned his desire to keep the democratic form of the Home Guard. How does he propose to safeguard the Home Guard against the introduction of that tremendous gulf between commissioned officers and the non-commissioned ranks, which exists in the Regular Army and which would create a great breach in the organisation and in the comradeship of the Home Guard?

Sir E. Grigg: I do not think any such gulf would be created. At present a tremendous number of officers who have held commissions all their lives are serving as soldiers in the Home Guard, and it cannot be said that any such gulf exists. The mere fact that a number of them carry the King's commission for certain specific purposes, will not alter the spirit of the Home Guard.

Dr. Summerskill: I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer this question with the seriousness which I believe it merits. I want to know whether he has considered allowing women to join the Home Guard, in view of the fact that in villages up and down the country there are women who have very little to occupy their spare time and who waste it very often in doing knitting and things of that nature. There are many women who can do knitting, and there are others who can do something better. I suggest that I can. We find women in the Battle of London doing work in the firing line, as well as men.

Sir E. Grigg: We have given consideration to that question, with every desire to give such opportunity as we can to the many women who want to serve, but we have been deterred by two things. In the first place, there is a tremendous demand for the services of women in the Civil Defence Services and, in the second, it is not much use recruiting women into one of the military Auxiliary Corps unless you can give them uniforms. As the hon. Lady knows, we have already been finding difficulty in providing uniforms for the Home Guard as it is. Perhaps later on it may be possible to do something.

Miss Rathbone: Has the hon. Gentleman considered this point—that during the longer nights it will be rather difficult for those people who work in the day-time to do all the watching that they have been doing during the summer? That is where women might come in. They might undertake some of the watching and observing duties which it will be difficult to provide for under winter conditions.

Sir E. Grigg: We are reducing the duties very greatly for the winter. I doubt whether extra numbers are required for that purpose in the Home Guard.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1940.

CLASS V.

SUPPLEMENTARY PENSIONS.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: On a point of Order. May I ask for your Riding, Colonel Clifton Brown, at the commencement of the Debate, on this point? We heard earlier a long statement from the Prime Minister on the same subject-matter as that with which we are about to deal now. Since that will involve legislation I wonder to what extent we are at liberty to discuss the statement.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the rule is perfectly definite. The Prime Minister's statement involves legislation, and it cannot be discussed on this occasion.

Mr. James Griffiths: It is true that the proposal requires legislation, but the Prime Minister announced that the Government proposed to remit the principle to the Assistance Board and ask them, later on, to submit Regulations. Would it be in order for us to discuss some of the things about which the Assistance Board will have to make up their mind? Will you rule out references of that kind?

Mr. Graham White: It seems to me that, in order to discuss the Estimate intelligently, we shall have to take into account certain consequential changes which are likely to arise as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement. There may be a question of the load of expenses as between the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health.

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members have raised rather difficult questions. I am inclined to think we must see how we go on. I have no desire to limit the Debate unduly, but I do not want it to go outside the scope of what is legitimate on the Supplementary Estimate before us. While I could not answer in advance the definite questions which have been put, I think it better to trust hon. Members to keep within reasonable limits.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ernest Brown): The original Estimate was submitted before the Act was passed on 21st March and before the Regulations were made on 8th June. There was, therefore, no material on which an Estimate could be based with any confidence except, of course, our knowledge of the old age pensioners who were receiving supplementary allowances through the then existing system of supplementation by public assistance authorities. I do not think I need stress at length the need for the Supplementary Estimate, for the figures themselves demonstrate that we need the money, but I think, in view of the Prime Minister's statement, which will of course rule out of order those things which involve legislation in the future, I should be meeting the Committee if, as far as possible, I confined myself to the outstanding facts in order that the Committee and the country may get a broad picture of the results of the three months' work.
This Supplementary Estimate is intended to make provision for 34 weeks, that is, from 3rd August to 31st March next year, for 1,060,000 supplementary cases. That does not mean individual pensions. Allowing for the fact that a married couple are usually treated as one case where both parties are pensioners, it is equivalent to about 1,325,000 persons. We have taken this figure as the basis for the Estimate in view of the fact that there has been a gradual increase in the number of supplementary cases since the scheme began, and the increase appears likely to continue. For the purpose of the Estimate the average payment per case—not per person—has been taken at 9s. a week, which is 2d. in excess of the average amount shown by a sample examination of cases dealt with in the first few weeks of the scheme. We have grounds for believing, that, as these cases come under periodical review,


payments will, on balance, be increased. I will not give any figures about that. We shall have to discuss them in the light of the consequent changes which will be necessary when the new Bill is brought in.
These are the outstanding facts which the Committee I am sure would like to have. In March, 1939, there were 275,000 old age pensioners in receipt of Poor Law relief at a total annual cost of £5,250,000. At the present time supplementary pensions are being paid in about 1,000,000 cases at an annual charge, including winter allowances, of about £24,000,000. As I have already indicated a man and wife living together are treated as one case, and the real number of beneficiaries is appreciably higher than 1,000,000. On the basis of a sample inquiry it may be put at 1,220,000. It will be seen from these figures that the number of old age and widow pensioners receiving an additional weekly payment by way of a supplementary pension is more than four times greater than the number of old age pensioners who were previously in receipt of Poor Law relief, and that the cost of the supplementary pensions is more than four times greater than the cost of the relief previously given. These figures make it plain that, with all the difficulties involved in the application of a central scheme over the whole country in place of hundreds of local schemes, a central scheme is much more popular than a local scheme.

Mr. Tinker: It also shows how many suffered up to this change.

Mr. Brown: I was coming to that. It also shows, as all social workers had suspected, that there was a great deal more need which did not express itself because of a dislike of local inquiry and of the application to the Poor Law. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) only anticipated what I was about to say. On the average, the weekly payments to the pensioner, whose basic pension is normally at the rate of 10s. a week, works out at about 7s. 5d. This average figure conceals a wide range of payments varying from 1s. to 30s. or more in individual cases. The lowest figure of 1s. may be paid to an applicant living alone who has resources of his own. In view of the numerous statutory disregards and discretionary allowances, a single pensioner—to take an example—may receive a sup-

plementary pension, although in addition to his old age pension, he has a superannuation payment of 16s. a week, bringing his income, apart from supplementation, up to 26s. a week. Indeed, if he has a disability pension, of which the first £1 a week is ignored, he may have considerably more than 26s. a week and still be entitled to a supplementary pension. In household cases the payments of supplementary pensions range from 2s. to 30s. or more. There are a few household cases in which 40s. is being paid. I will give an illustration to make it clear how that arises. Here is a case of an old age pensioner with a young wife and four children between eight and 14. The need for the man and wife is assessed at 31s. and that of the four children at 21s. 6d., making a total of 52s. 6d. Deducting the pension of 10s. a week, the payment made is 42s. 6d.
Perhaps the Committee will find it convenient if I take one or two leading categories and show the proportions in which supplementary pensions of various amounts are paid. An analysis of the range of weekly supplementary pensions shows that in some 30 per cent., of the cases the payment is 10s. or more. In a further 30 per cent, it is between 7s. 7d. and 10s. In the remaining 40 per cent. or so it is less than 7s. 6d., but only in 11 per cent. of those cases is the payment 2s. 6d. a week or less. A good deal has been said about the fact that of the original applications a considerable number could not be allowed. The Minister of Health and I, and the Assistance Board and the Government have taken into consideration in our review all the complaints that have been made as to how the new Act applied, and we took a large sample of these cases. That sample showed that, approximately. 36 per cent. of the applicants had resources of their own to which, even allowing for the numerous disregards and disretionary allowances, were sufficient to take them outside the range of possible beneficiaries. A further analysis of cases disallowed is in progress and will be made available to the House when future discussions take place.
I should like to say a word about those classes of cases that had to be taken over from the public assistance authorities. Throughout the land the Assistance Board has administered the supplemen-


tary pension scheme in such a way as to ensure that no person suffered any reduction in income through being transferred from the Public Assistance authority to the Board. Out of the 266,000 cases so transferred, 190,000 have had increases as a result of the application of the new Regulations. In about 50,000 cases a special addition has been necessary to bring the amount which would have been payable under the Board scales up to the Public Assistance figure. In the remainder of the transferred cases the supplementary payment is as before. The Committee may like to have some statistical information as to the distribution, according to different factors, of pensioners drawing supplementary pensions. The figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of 976,000 cases. Take the geographical distribution: 10 per cent. of the pensioners are in Scotland, 7.1 in Wales and 82.9 in England.
And now what about the basic pension? In 46.3 per cent. of cases the basic pension is a contributory old age pension, in 12.7 per cent a widow's pension, and in 33.6 per cent. a non-contributory pension. This leaves a residue of 7.4 per cent for which the information is not available. In terms of cases the Committee will probably wish to know the difference between men and women. Treating the case of a man and wife living together as one case, 23.9 per cent. were male pensioners, 51.6 per cent. female pensioners and 21.5 per cent. married couples both of whom were pensioners. I have a long analysis of the distribution between household and non-household cases. I will not trouble the Committee with it all, but three outstanding cases will be of interest. If necessary, the whole table can be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The analysis shows that 33.3 per cent. are female pensioners living alone; 29.9 per cent. a single pensioner or married couple, both pensioners living in a household containing non-dependent members; and 16.8 per cent. a married couple, both pensioners, living alone. In view of hon. Members' inquiries, they may find these facts interesting.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid the Minister did not make clear the details of each category living in households, and I should be glad if he could clear that up.

Mr. Tinker: The Minister said he would put the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I understand it cannot appear there unless he includes it in his speech, because it would be something which we had not had a chance to criticise.

Mr. Brown: It would be easy to arrange for a Question to be put and for the information to be given as an answer to it. However, I am in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. Tinker: Let us have it all.

Mr. Brown: I will give it in terms of categories: 12.7 per cent. are male pensioners living alone; 33.3 per cent. female pensioners living alone; 3.1 per cent. male pensioners with dependants; .8 per cent. female pensioners with dependants; 16.8 per cent. married couples, both pensioners, living alone; .4 per cent. married couples, both pensioners, living with dependants; 29.9 per cent. single pensioners or married couples (both pensioners) living in a household containing non-dependant members; 3 per cent. two or more pensioners other than a married couple so living. Those are the categories, and they show exactly how the households are divided up in ratio. The numbers hon. Members can work out for themselves, or, if they desire to have it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I will give the information as an answer to a Question.
As to the distribution of cases with resources, that is, resources apart from the pension, and those without such resources, the analysis shows that in 37.7 per cent. there were no resources other than the main pension, that in 29.9 per cent. there were other resources, but by reason of disregards or discretionary allowances no account was taken of such resources in assessing the supplementary pensions; and in 32.4 per cent. resources went to reduce the supplementary pension. I think those facts are of interest, because they measure the problem which the Committee has to face. In view of the limited time I will not detain the Committee by entering into any examination of the operation of the scheme, except to say that I think hon. Members will agree that, over the whole country, the Board's officers have applied the machinery with both flexibility and consideration. The period of


winter allowances is just beginning, and because it is so recent I have no facts to give the Committee on that point. As hon. Members know, it has been the practice of some public assistance authorities, at least in Scotland, to make yearly or half-yearly grants of clothing to old age pensioners in receipt of outdoor relief. In their administration of supplementary pensions it is the intention of the Assistance Board that no pensioner shall be in a worse position than when he was in the charge of the public assistance authorities—

Mr. Woodburn): Is it not the case that instead of giving that relief by way of clothing they are now giving it in cash?

Mr. Brown: That is an illustration of the flexibility of the procedure, but the basic principle is that old age pensioners should not find themselves worse off. It may suit applicants to have the money instead of the clothes. I have one word to say about appeals. In the four weeks ended 27th September, the last period for which I have the figures, 7,256 appeals were received, and there were some outstanding from an earlier period. In the same period of four weeks the decisions of the officers of the Assistance Board were confirmed in 6,797 cases, and varied in 2,060 cases.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Those were appeals that went to the appeals tribunals?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Has the Minister any figures to show how many appeals were rejected?

Mr. Brown: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is to reply, and I will see whether we can get the figures. As the Committee know, the figures that I have given only represent a measure of the extent to which, in three months, this scheme must have affected for good the budgets, the social economy and the happiness of thousands of households in the country. Any changes that may flow from the announcement made to-day by the Prime Minister can, of course, only be for the benefit of the pensioners. The nation has a warm regard for the old people, and that feeling is shared in every part of this House.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It looks like it.

Mr. Brown: Sometimes, of course, acquiescence is the best of signs from the Minister's point of view.

Mr. James Griffiths: In making his statement the Prime Minister said something with which all of us cordially and warmly agree, that it is a fine tribute to this House and the people of this country that in the storm and stress of this great conflict we can turn aside to discuss problems of this kind. But if he were here I would say that this is the kind of war which can only be won if this House devotes its attention to removing every social sore in this country, and that we are not turning away from the war when we are dealing with this matter. We are fortifying the principal and, I think, the decisive thing in this war, the morale of the civilian population. Therefore, we ought to regard ourselves this afternoon as not putting on one side the problems of the war when we are discussing a Measure which will reflect itself in the greater confidence of our people. It is now just over 5½ years since I was privileged to make my maiden speech in this House. It was largely devoted to what I thought then, and still think, is the meanest thing this House of Commons has ever done, the imposition of the household means test, and to me and to many hon. Members on both sides of the House—because there are Members opposite who have joined in protest against the household means test and I am glad to see one at least is present—it was a matter of pleasure to hear the Prime Minister's statement that the Government now propose to substitute something fairer than the household means test.
I do not propose to say more about the Prime Minister's statement until I have read it, but I do hope the Government will make a clean cut and have no more "snags". The Secretary of State for Scotland, who has just moved this Estimate, and given his explanation, for which we are grateful, has some experience in this matter, and knows that what I am going to say is right. The Assistance Board's record in this matter is not a very enviable one. It is now to be asked to produce new Regulations which will come before the House. So far it has not produced a single set of Regulations which has not been turned


down. The first Regulations produced a storm in the country, and the right hon. Gentleman became Minister of Labour as a result of that storm. The Prime Minister's statement this afternoon will become the terms of reference of the Assistance Board in drawing up those new Regulations. They have been asked to look at those principles and translate them in the Regulations. I hope that the Government will give instructions showing that they desire to do the big and generous thing for the aged people of this country and that the Regulations, when they come forward, will be carried out in generous measure in the administration, which will not take advantage of loose wording to make matters more difficult. My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised a very important point, which I think the Prime Minister did not fully realise or reply to in his statement. When these Regulations come before the House—

The Deputy-Chairman: I must rule discussion of the Regulations out of Order.

Mr. Griffiths: I was only going to ask whether we were to be limited to turning the Regulations down or accepting them, when they come before the House, and to suggest that there might be some other course. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
More than 1,000,000 old age pensioners have had to apply for supplementary grants or allowances to their pensions in order that they might exist. That is a sad commentary upon the social system in this country. These men and women, now aged 60 or 65 years, have had to work hard all their lives. They have given their lives in the service of this country and, at the end, in the evening of their days, because their wages and their standard of living have been so deplorably low, they have inadequate resources to sustain them. The Minister of Labour, in the very detailed analysis which he gave, and for which we are much obliged—we shall study them when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT—indicated that 37 per cent. of these aged people were found, upon investigation by officers of the Assistance Board, to have no resources except their pensions. That means that nearly 400,000 aged people, many of whom began work at 11 or 12 years of age, have reared families and

have boys now in the Services, find that, at the age of 60 or 65, they have only their pensions to depend upon. We must solve that social problem. We must not wait until the end of the war to do so but must solve it now, if we are to win the war. There is something that radically needs altering in the industrial and social system of this country, and I hope that we shall not wait, but shall begin altering it now.
Another point of very great importance in the statement was made by the Minister to-day. We are receiving, discussing, and passing, as we shall, this Supplementary Estimate because the original Estimate went wrong. There was a very serious under-estimate by Government officials of the number of persons who would claim pensions. They made the mistake because of something to which we have drawn attention very often from this side of the House; it is that the number of old men and women who will not go to public assistance committees is far larger than any Government Department estimated. It is not larger than we estimated, because we have lived among these people and we know what they feel about it. This fact is in many ways a very great tribute to the elderly people of this country, because it shows that they still have sufficient pride and self-respect to refuse to do something which they regard as receiving parish relief—as they still call it. To them it is something which they ought to avoid. I hope that all these facts will be borne in mind when the new scheme comes forward. If they are, the scheme will be worthy of the talent and the courage of the generation to whom we owe so much.
As the time-table, which has been much shortened by the announcements which have been made, makes it desirable that we should all be brief, I will content myself with raising two or three issues. The first is that even after the new scheme comes into operation there will have to be investigations. I put it to the Minister that it is desirable, nay essential, that the greatest possible care should be taken in the appointment of investigators and in the instructions that are given to them. Their work has been very well done, but I hear that the investigations have not been conducted in some rural areas as they ought to have been. I urge upon the Minister that the appointments and


instructions of investigators be very carefully considered.
It has, I will not say, "come to our knowledge" because perhaps that is not the right way of saying it, but it has been rumoured persistently to us, in connection with the determinations, that, because the first determinations indicated a larger number of pensioners than the Government had estimated and a far larger amount of money than had been budgeted for, some kind of secret instruction went out to the officers of the Assistance Board. When the cases came back to be reviewed, pensioners who, on their first determinations, had been awarded 5s., 6s. or 7s. 6d., found those pensions reduced to 2s. 6d., or 2s., or completely wiped away. In many cases that was due not to changed circumstances but to changed instructions. I certainly suggest that, if this House passes Regulations, it is entitled to ask that they be not whittled down afterwards by secret instructions from the Minister to the people who have to operate them. Where are those secret instructions? Is that being fair to the House of Commons and to the old people? I want an assurance that in future no secret instructions of that kind will be sent out to whittle away what, after all, we have decided shall be given to the old people.
I want to say a word about appeals. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister of Health, and he promised to consider it. I am hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply to-day. The right hon. Gentleman gave figures of the appeals, and questions were asked from this side. My question was addressed to the Minister of Health on the same aspect of the problem. There is no right of appeal for the old age pensioner, as there is no right of appeal for the unemployed person, who receives an unemployment allowance. All he is entitled to do is to say, "I am not satisfied with my determination, and I want to have my claim to appeal considered by the chairman." As a matter of fact, the absolute right of determining whether there shall be a hearing of an appeal rests with the chairman of the tribunal. It does not even rest with the tribunal as a tribunal; it rests with the chairman. In passing those Regulations the House of Commons could not have been fully aware of the implications of what they decided. I

want an absolute right of appeal. Why not? We have decided upon certain Regulations which leave a good deal to the discretion of officers. Since so much is left to the discretion of officers, Parliament should lay it down that an officer in the use of his discretion ought not to have the last word, but that there should be a right of appeal by the pensioner or the unemployed man to the tribunal. When the matter is considered again I hope that that right of appeal will be granted. What has happened is that the chairmen of tribunals have acted very arbitrarily. Some chairmen of tribunals have used their power with great discretion and in the majority of cases have allowed an opportunity for the old people to appeal, but there are other chairmen who just wipe them out. I think it is the desire of Members on every side of this Committee that there should be a right of appeal by the old people, and I hope it will be granted.
The Minister has given us a mass of figures, all of which are very valuable and I hope will be valuable to the Assistance Board when they come to consider the new Regulations. I want to make a special plea. Now that we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter again, I would like us to consider afresh whether that which we have allowed the people is enough. I do not think it is. We give 32s. to an old man and an old lady who live together, subject to adjustments, winter allowances, and such matter. Even when they get the maximum allowance, it still leaves them unable to meet the conditions of life as they exist to-day. The cost of living is continually going up. That will have to be considered. I do not think it has been sufficiently considered by the officers or by the tribunals. The Prime Minister has promised us that before Christmas we shall meet and pass Regulations that will do something like real justice to these aged people who have given their whole life to this nation and who are giving their sons to this nation to-day. They deserve the best that we can do for them.

Mr. Lipson: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has spoken with the sincerity and eloquence that we usually associate with him, and I for one find myself in considerable agreement with what he has said. In particular, I agree with his


opening remark, that in discussing this matter to-day we are not turning away from our war effort, but that this in fact is part of our war effort. I would go even further and say that, as good sometimes comes out of evil, I very much doubt whether we should have been considering this increase in the old age pensions had it not been for the war, and I doubt whether we should have had from the Prime Minister to-day the statement about the abolition of the household means test but for the war. In common with other hon. Members, I welcome that statement.
I think the Committee will certainly approve the voting of the money that is asked for the purpose of the supplementary old age pensions. In fact, the only thing that some of us would have liked would have been that the sum had been larger, because although the amount of money that has been spent on supplementary old age pensions is very great and the number of people who are benefiting from the supplementary old age pensions is very much larger than was anticipated, I think we all know in our constituencies many cases of individuals who have been refused supplementary old age pensions and who in our opinion should have been granted them. We have been told by the Minister that the number of those who are getting old age pensions is something like four times as great as those who were in receipt of public assistance relief, and that figure, I believe, is something like twice as large as was anticipated during the Debate would be the number of those who would benefit from supplementary old age pensions. That shows how right were those of us who said it was necessary to increase the old age pensions, and how much more right we were than the Government in this respect because we were more alive than they were to the need for this increase. Although they estimated that the figure would he something like 600,000, it has proved to be something like 1,320,000. Therefore, I hope that when social questions are again discussed more attention will be paid to those Members who, day by day, are in touch with their constituents and who know their needs.
Large as has been the number who have benefited, I, in common with other Members of the Committee, have had to write a considerable number of letters to the

Minister of Health and to the Parliamentary Secretary drawing attention to the facts in the administration of these supplementary old age pensions which have caused concern. Some of those hard cases will be met by the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister to-day, but there are others still outstanding which will not be met and which I would like to have considered. I have had two kinds of experience with regard to the administration of the supplementary old age pensions. Old age pensioners have written to me and have been to see me in large numbers. I think I have had more letters and more visits in connection with the administration of the supplementary old age pensions than in connection with any other matter since I have been a Member of the House of Commons. They have come to me and convinced me that they ought to have a supplementary old age pension when one has been refused. I have sent many cases up to the Minister, and he has sent them to the Assistance Board in my area. As a result of that in many instances the pension has been granted. That shows that, so far as my own particular area is concerned, the administration has not in many instances been as considerate as it might have been. I think it is wrong that old age pensioners should get what they are entitled to only as a result of pressure brought to bear by a Member of this House. I hope, therefore, that the administration will be looked into carefully, with a view to its improvement in certain areas. The Minister must know which they are, since he can judge from the correspondence he has had from Members of this House and others.
I have also had another experience, Old age pensioners have approached me recently, at my house or in the street, and have told me that they were originally granted a supplementary old age pension and that it has now been reduced or taken away, though the conditions are exactly the same. I want to submit that that is contrary to an undertaking given in this House, for one of the merits which was urged, when it was put before the House, for the proposal that the administration of supplementary old age pensions should be put in the hands of the Assistance Board, was that, as compared with public assistance committee grants, supplementary old age pensions would not


be subject to constant review, so that the pensioner, his pension once granted, would know that he had reasonable security providing his condition remained the same. Yet we find that after the Assistance Board has granted pensions a great many of them are, after three months, being reduced or withdrawn.
I also wish to draw attention to what I consider to be an alarming piece of administration of supplementary old age pensions by the Assistance Board arising out of war conditions. As a result of the war, a great many old age pensioners have left bombed areas and have gone to safer areas. I have heard about a great many of these people, because I have the good fortune to represent a constituency which is considered to be one of the safer areas. When these people come into the reception areas they find that the supplementary old age pension which they were previously receiving is reduced. Immediately they come away to a safer area the officials of the Assistance Board find out, pounce upon them and reduce their old age pensions, the reason presumably being that as they have gone into the houses of friends or relations they are no longer paying rent. I have had my attention drawn to instances like this and I have sent one to the Parliamentary Secretary. This concerns an old lady who came from a bombed area to stay with her son in my constituency and whose pension was reduced. She said, "I cannot continue to live here; I am not going to expect my son and daughter-in-law to keep me on the reduced pension, and unless this is put right, I shall go back to the bombed area." I sent an S.O.S.—marking the letter "Urgent"—to the Parliamentary Secretary, saying, "Cannot you stop this? It is not right." On the one hand the Minister of Health tells old people that they should leave bombed areas, and then, when they do so, they are penalised by the officials of the Assistance Board and their pensions are reduced. I asked if the Parliamentary Secretary could not intervene and stop this sort of thing. All the reply I received from the Parliamentary Secretary was a formal acknowledgment of my letter. This is some two or three weeks ago. I had a letter the other day to say that the old lady has now gone back to the bombed area, and I have sent another

letter to draw attention to the matter. I have received just a formal acknowledgment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I think my hon. Friend does not realise that, in respect of all those who leave bombed areas, a billeting allowance of 5s. a week can be and is being paid by the Government to a relation or friend who takes them in. Everyone who leaves an evacuation area and goes to a reception or neutral area receives, if they ask for it, 5s. a week billeting allowance for the people with whom they are living. If they have gone to the area and have not asked for the allowance, they can write to the town clerk of their original area and get a certificate.

Mr. Lipson: I think I have an answer to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. A week ago I met the chairman of our billeting committee. She is a lady who is an alderman of the local council and has been Mayor of Cheltenham. She drew my attention to this matter and said, "We do not give the 5s. billeting allowances to old age pensioners because we find, if we do, that the Assistance Board at once reduces their allowance by that amount."

Miss Horsbrugh: I am sorry I did not make it clear. My hon. Friend said that the person of whom he spoke felt that the relation could not be asked to give everything and get nothing in return. If an old age pensioner goes to live in the house of her son, daughter, or of a person who is no relation, the billeting authority, as my hon. Friend knows, does not give the 5s. to the old age pensioner: it is given as an allowance to the householder. It does not matter if the evacuee is an old age pensioner or anything else. There are hundreds and thousands of cases. The 5s. allowance is not given to the individual evacuee; it is in each case an allowance for the receiving householder.

Mr. Lipson: If I may be allowed to repeat a little more of the conversation I had with the chairman of the committee, I may provide the Parliamentary Secretary with an answer to the point she has made. The chairman said to me: "I think it is a shame, because when these people come away, suffering from shock and so on, their needs are greater; they need more money." I therefore submit that what we


ought to have is a standstill arrangement during this period of bombing, so far as supplementary old age pensions are concerned, so that the old age pensioners who have to leave bombed areas and go to reception areas should not have their supplementary pensions reduced on that account, but should be allowed to keep the 5s. to help them to meet the additional expenses which they must incur in coming to a new place under strange conditions, probably suffering as a result of their bombing experiences. I would ask if consideration could not be given to that point.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of appeals. A large number of old age pensioners have drawn my attention to the fact that their appeal has been disallowed as being out of order because it was made two or three days after the expiry of the stipulated period of 14 days. I submit that these old age pensioners do not always exactly understand problems of this kind, and that 14 days is much Ion short a time to allow them. As a matter of fact, I do not see why there should be a time limit at all. Appeals should be considered on their merits, whether they have been made within 14 days or not. If a person can make out a case for a supplementary old age pension it ought to be heard, but in present circumstances some of these old people just miss the date and their appeal cannot even be heard. I would therefore ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the 14 days' rule could not be abolished.
In conclusion, I think that as a result of the war, and particularly of the bombing, there is much more community feeding among all classes. We realise too how much this country owes to its ordinary men and women. If the morale of our people in the bombed areas had failed within the last few weeks, our situation would have been indeed serious and critical. But they stuck it, and we feel that we owe a very great debt of obligation to them. I am sure that there is not a single hon. Member who is not anxious that that debt should be paid in full. In particular, I hope it will be paid in full to the old age pensioners.

Mr. Batey: No legislation which this House has passed in the last eight years has given rise to so much satisfaction as the Act dealing with

supplementary pensions. Members are receiving letters from old people nearly every day, however, complaining of the assessment of the supplementary pensions. The statement made by the Prime Minister to-day takes a good deal of the sting out of this Debate, but I am not at all clear about that statement. I understood that the household means test was to be abolished, and a personal means test substituted. I have a copy of the Prime Minister's statement—for greater accuracy—and there are two questions arising from it which I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to deal with when she replies. The statement says that the standard contribution of non-dependent members of the applicant's household towards the rent and other overheads will be taken into account.

The Temporary Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member is not entitled to debate that matter; he must wait for the legislation.

Mr. Batey: But we understood that the household means test was to be abolished. I want to point out that it is not to be abolished. It is to be altered, and perhaps one or two small points will be remedied, but the household means test will remain.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to have to stop the hon. Member. He will have an opportunity of debating that when the new legislation is introduced. This is not the occasion.

Mr. Batey: I am sorry, because I wanted to deal with that question. One does not want to discuss the numerous complaints that one has heard in regard to supplementary pensions. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) raised the question of the right of appeal. I agree that every old person ought to have the right of appeal, but I go further. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how many appeals have been made since the Act was passed, and how many have been refused. My experience is that it is no use for old people to make appeals, because in 19 cases out of 20 the appeal is decided against them. That is due to the constitution of the appeal courts. There is a legal gentleman, who is appointed to hear the appeal. I say that without intending any offence. I could tell before the appeal came before him what his


decision would be. Under the Act giving old age pensions at 65 and pensions to widows, we had so many appeals decided against the applicants and so few granted that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to ask the Minister now to consider seriously the appointment of a representative of the working classes on each of the appeal courts, so that we might get some guarantee that the appeals will receive some attention, and not be dealt with as they are at present.
I should like to know, too, what is the cost of the appeal courts. How much do these legal gentlemen receive? The expenditure seems to be waste of money with the appeal courts constituted as they are at present. I would like the courts reconstituted so that each has a representative who knows something about the lives of the applicants. I confess that the advice I give to all my own people is not to appeal, because the appeal will go against them; and, once the appeal court has decided, the decision is final, and even the Minister cannot do anything. Another grievance is the difficulty which some people have in getting their pensions. I have in mind the case of a woman who reached the age of 60 in February. She made an application for a pension, and received a postcard saying that she would get the pension in July. Last week she still had not received her pension. I sent that case to the Minister, and I asked that something should be done to speed up the machinery, so that those entitled to pensions may get them.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Every Member who resides in his constituency finds, I think, that this problem of supplementary pensions and its administration is causing more difficulty and more work than any other problem. It is true that, as a result of the passing of the main legislation, a substantial number of aged people found contentment and satisfaction. Substantial benefits have been conferred by that legislation. But it is equally true that something like 250,000 aged people in this country have been refused supplementary pensions, and that at least another 250,000 have been given supplementary pensions on a scale different from that intended by this House. These problems will not be met by the statement

made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to discuss that statement, except to say that hon. Members would be wise not to build up too many expectations in the minds of aged people on the basis of that statement, or we shall see ourselves going back again, as we did over the treatment of war savings.
I want to deal with points which may appear to be small, but are of importance in the administration of the supplementary pensions. The intention of Parliament is being thwarted by the Assistance Board. Whatever good intentions may be expressed from the Front Bench here, they are very seldom carried into operation by the Assistance Board. It hides away from the House of Commons. I will give one or two examples. Reference has been made this afternoon to the appeal tribunals. The previous Minister of Health repeatedly said here that not only must justice be done, but that it must appear to be done as well. He left us with the general impression that most of the old age pensioners would find an open door at the appeal tribunals. What has been found? In many parts, at least, of South Wales some chairmen of appeal tribunals have been acting like little Hitlers. They have simply turned down applications. Representations have been made by some Members of Parliament for the reconsideration of applications. Even then the chairman of the appeal tribunal regards himself as lord of all he surveys in this connection and merely leaves the pensioner dissatisfied because the pensioner has not been able to have a hearing. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to try to impress upon the minds of chairmen of appeal tribunals that it is highly essential that old age pensioners should get satisfaction, in the sense that they can get a hearing of their grievances before the properly authorised appeal tribunals.
On the administrative side, we have in this conflict between the Assistance Board and Parliament an example of the difficulty in regard to the winter additions. We heard an announcement from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health recently in which she described what these winter additions would be and how they would be applied. Everybody who heard that statement thought that the old people were to get something extra in the winter. What do we find? It will only apply in those cases where not less than half of the amount coming into the


household is derived from the Assistance Board or from pension. I quote the hon. Lady's statement:
Officers will pay particular attention to cases whre the pensioner has only his old age and supplementary pension for the support of himself and dependants, and also where the pensioner is a member of a household with other persons not dependent upon him, and to cases where not less than one-half of the total income of the household is epresented by the amount of the suppleary pension.
So that the man who has been penalised once and has got the least out of the Assistance Board is to get the least consideration. The Parliamentary Secretary does not appear to appreciate the point.

Miss Horsbrugh: I do, quite.

Mr. Edwards: The pensioner living in a household is given a smaller supplementary pension and it is argued that he is not entitled to the winter addition, That, in my view, is an indication of how the Assistance Board is getting behind the intention of the House of Commons. The House has decided what shall be disregarded. It has agreed, in the main legislation, that certain items of income shall be wholly disregarded for the purpose of the winter addition. Here we get a conflict between what is laid down in the Statute and the instruction to the Assistance Board which has been read out in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary. I would draw the attention of the Committee to that matter. There is another phase of the problem. We were repeatedly told that in the application and administration of supplementary pensions there would be every effort made to keep to the good practice of the local authorities. The previous Minister of Health said:
The Board will now draw up new Regulations in order to bring this practice into conformity with the practice of good local authorities.
I am afraid that the Assistance Board has not carried out that pledge. The public assistance committees have defined the household. In Glamorgan, for instance, they give 75. 9d. But what has happened now? All cases treated as a separate household by the public assistance committee were given the 9s. 6d., whereas previously they had had 7s. 6d. from the public assistance committee, but under some new instruction, which has invited the area officers to look more closely at the definition of a household,

all the books have been called In and the new supplementary pension of 7s. 9d. has been issued.

Miss Horsbrugh: Am I right in assuming that they are now getting the same as they were getting under public assistance?

Mr. Edwards: We were told that the practice of good local authorities would continue to be applied. All local authorities defined what a household was and gave public assistance supplementation on the basis of a separate household. In Glamorgan that amount was 7s. 9d. When the supplementary pension came into operation, the Assistance Board accepted the fact of a separate household and, in that case, gave the 9s. 6d., but under some new instruction the books are now being called in and supplementary pensions of 7s. 9d. are being sent out. The figure is the same, but the Minister did not tell us at that table that the figure was to be the same. He did not limit it in that way. He said that the practice of the good authorities would continue to be applied. When these people complain, the Assistance Board says that the practice of the local authority is wrong and that therefore they ought to have only 2s. 6d. It seems that the Assistance Board again has gone behind the Minister and the House of Commons.
Some 60 or 70 per cent. of the defects in connection with supplementary pensions rests upon the question of what is a household and how the household is defined. We shall not get rid of the household means test unless we grapple with this problem and we shall not bring that measure of satisfaction to the old age pensioners that apparently we want to give them. I will quote an example of how, again, the Assistance Board is acting, in my view more partially in the case of supplementary pensioners in connection with the definition of household, than they are in connection with unemployment assistance. I brought a case to the notice of the Minister in which a son-in-law was living in the household. He was on unemployment assistance some two years ago. His case was investigated by this same Assistance Board who held that he was living in a separate household. It based his unemployment assistance upon the fact that he was paying 6s. in rent as a sub-tenant. The house in fact


belonged to his mother-in-law who had been a tenant for many years. The Act dealing with supplementary old-age pensions came into operation and the same Assistance Board made an investigation of the application and came to the conclusion that it was one household only and that the lady, who was regarded as a tenant for many years, was not the tenant or the householder with the result that she obtained only 2S. 6d. instead of 8s. 6d. I submit, with all due respect, that the Assistance Board is endeavouring to spread out the butter as thinly as they can in order to hide the extent to which they have miscalculated the very grave need which exists among our old people.
There is one other point which I have been asked to raise by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Jackson), who, unfortunately, cannot be present on account of ill-health. As the House knows he represents a rural constituency. During the main Debate on the Bill a point was raised on the exercise of rural discrimination, and I must say, from all the reports I get, that this is having an extremely bad effect on the countryside. Food in the country is price-controlled and rationed in the same way as food in the urban areas. Meat is probably dearer and fish is certainly dearer, and whatever grounds may have existed in the past for rural discrimination, they do not exist to-day. There ought to be some mitigation of the rural discrimination clause, and I hope that, as a result of this discussion, we shall get a little more humanity from the Board. The difficulty of Members to-day is that so many cases come to us that we are coming more and more into conflict with officers who are trying to do their job in difficult circumstances. In fact it is becoming almost a personal conflict between Members of Parliament and assistance officers, and I am hoping that as a result of to-day's Debate we shall get some improvement.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: The only satisfaction I can derive from the Prime Minister's statement is the fact that the whole matter is to be reconsidered. It is quite evident from the speeches made by some hon. Members to-day that they are very sceptical as to what the eventual decision of the Government may be with regard to

these supplementary pensions. To my mind it ought to be a very simple matter, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary would do well to impress on the powers-that-be that—

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to discuss legislation arising out of the Prime Minister's statement. If he proposes to do that, I shall have to call him to Order.

Sir W. Allen: It is not my intention to discuss proposed legislation, but I want to say that an old age pensioner who may perhaps get 6s. a week income ought to be entitled to a supplementary pension pro rata to that 6s. and that if an old age pensioner is getting 10s. a week, there ought to be no difficulty about giving him a full supplementary pension. It simply means taking into consideration the personal means of the individual. If that is done, I think the whole thing will be simplified and will do away entirely with the present process.

Mr. Barr: I am sure that we can accept your Ruling, Major Milner, that we cannot reflect on the content of the statement made by the Prime Minister; but in accordance with what has been allowed to fall from various speakers, I think I may be allowed to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on the announcement made to-day. If the statement is followed out in a generous spirit, it will be a landmark in the social progress and change of this country, and will do much to heal what is a serious open sore at the present time. I might have made my tribute even more unqualified had it not been for some of the points that have been remotely hinted at with regard to the statement. So I confine myself to the present administration. It is not that I wish to complain unduly, because the tribunals and officers are working under Regulations which have been laid down, and have not a fully free hand; but I would like to give two instances of the working of the Act, both of which come from my constituency. I have the names here, which I withhold, but they are available. The first concerns a household pensioner who was granted a supplementary pension of 5s. 6d. His daughter, who is married, with her husband in the Army, acts as his housekeeper. She found her resources straitened, and went out to work to keep


out of debt. The result is that the 5s. 6d. is cut off, and in a letter to me this pensioner says:
I have one alternative—turn my daughter out, and get 9s. 6d. I will not write to her husband in the Army and tell him that I am compelled by the U.A.B. to turn his wife into the street until I am sure there is no other way.
The other case concerns an iron worker, 82 years of age, who resides with his married son and family. He was given 3s. 6d. a week supplementation for the first four weeks. During this time his son worked a few hours overtime for nine days, and the result was the withdrawal of the 3s. 6d. which had been granted. The son heard the call "Go to it," but in doing so he robbed his father of his small supplementation.
I should also like to indicate the feeling in my own constituency among pensioners themselves. Here is a resolution which is similar to those passed all over the country, although I think I may claim that in Scotland Coatbridge has been almost the centre of this movement. The Coatbridge Branch of the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association, requesting the Town Council to support an amendment of the 1940 Act, says of the Act:
The means test clause of the Act is making the position of the said pensioners very cruel and unfair and, in spite of promises made to the contrary, has worsened the conditions of many of our old folks now that they have no claim to public assistance, and in many instances penalises unfairly any attempt to be thrifty.
In his admirable statement, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the aim was that there should be no worsening. I think the reference in the quotation I have made is largely to the worsening that took place especially at the beginning. The Public Assistance Committees used to give clothing and other perquisites, and then that provision was not available under the new conditions. I gather that an effort is being made to make this up either in cash or by some other means, and I trust that it will be fully augmented, for this is a real cause of complaint. The resolution to which I have referred was sent to the Coatbridge Town Council, and the Town Council were asked to give their support. That support was granted unanimously. I would observe that it is not a Labour Town Council, although there is a considerable number of Labour representa-

tives on it; in Coatbridge what are known as the Moderates are in power. There was not a single word in the Town Council in favour of the Act as it is now being administered—not that they blamed the administration, and not that I wish to do so. The other Town Council in my constituency, that of Airdrie, while not expressing adherence to the resolution—I think they were not asked to do so—were of the same mind, and they have said that they would welcome the bringing in of a personal means test in place of the family means test now applicable.
There have been most enthusiastic meetings on this subject. The feeling that has been created is such that new members are constantly joining the Old Age Pensioners' Associations, and one correspondent has said to me that the interest is now at fever height. I wish to quote to the House from a letter sent to me on 17th September by ex-Provost Irvine who is at the head of this movement, and who has taken up this matter with great earnestness and addressed meetings in many parts of the country. He wrote:
So far as I can remember no single piece of legislation has given rise to so much dissatisfaction and indignation as this has done, and it must inevitably lead to a regrettable mistrust of our Parliamentary system at a time when such an institution should have the unqualified support of every right-thinking person as an impatial court for the people as a whole.
I know that I may not discuss the merits of a personal means test as far as it requires legislation, but I think I may recall to hon. Members that, in the case of non-contributory old age pensions, our present legislation has been operated on this basis from the beginning. In 1908, there was an income range from £21 to £31 10s., and the pension granted varied accordingly on a sliding scale from 5s. down to is. In the 1919 legislation there was a further advance from a limit of £26 5s. up to £49 17s. 6d., and in the 1924 legislation unearned income to an amount of £39 was disregarded. I will not say more on that matter. That legislation is already in force, and I trust that by the change that may come in that regard we may make an even further advance. I should like to call attention to an Answer that was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 11th December, 1935, in which he said that if the means limit for non-con-


tributory pensions were placed at £100, for the first year the expenditure on the part of the Treasury would be only from £,5,000,000 to £6,000,000, although there would be a steady increase in after years.
I close my remarks by saying that there is a real need to eradicate the growing discontent in this matter. Even with the good intentions which there may be behind the Act as it is now operated—and I accept all that has been said about the benefits that have come from it—there is this discontent, which is deeply opposed to the stability and strength of the State. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the nation has a warm regard for the old people. I trust we shall show that this regard is active. I am sure that, although we cannot claim the right hon. Gentlemn as a native of Scotland, he is well familiar with much of our Scottish literature. In that literature there is a famous and oft-quoted verse—I need not say from where it comes—
To make a happy fire-side clime To weans and wife;
That's the true pathos and sublime Of human life.
We have had enough of the pathos; let us seek to give them more of the sublime. I am glad that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, not only the weans and wife, but the old people, are to come into the picture, to have a happy fire-side, to have a fire-side that they can call their own, and to have a sense of independence. I trust that in the administration, and if need be in the legislation, to which I may not refer, we shall no longer deal with this question in a cheap and niggardly way, but that we shall deal with it with generosity, dignity, and justice.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Those hon. Members who were in the House when the Ruling with regard to this Debate was given from the Chair will remember that it was to the effect that it would be in Order to comment upon the Prime Minister's statement within reason, but not to debate it. I propose to abide by that Ruling. When the statement was made, I was pleased with it, but since looking at a copy of it which my hon. Friend the Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) has obtained, I have become a bit sceptical about certain portions of it.

Therefore, I shall not to-day make the observations that I had intended to make on it, but shall look forward to the statement being interpreted to the House in a most generous way. Let me say that the only satisfactory interpretation, as far as we on this side are concerned, will be the complete abolition of the household means test. We, on this side, if we are worthy of the people we represent, are smarting under the lash of the administration of the means test since 1931.
Having said that, I want to deal now with the administration of the present Act. I say unhesitatingly, speaking from my own experience—and it is a pretty wide one—that the intentions of Parliament are not being reflected in the administration of the Supplementary Pensions Act. The assurances which were given by the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), have not been fulfilled. During the passage of that Act I, with a small number of my hon. Friends, sat through the whole of the Debate. We were impressed by the magnanimous spirit of the right hon. Gentleman who was piloting the Act through all its stages. I went away night after night, and also spoke at week-ends, hoping that that spirit was going to find expression in the administration of the Act. But here I have a few concrete examples. A man appeals to the chairman of a tribunal. Just imagine him; he is a man of over 65 years of age. Imagine all it means to a miner, or an engineer or a pottery worker, who has worn himself out and has not managed to obtain the livelihood of many hon. Members in this House. Such men have spent 40 or 50 years in the mines, or in engineering works, or in steel works. They have worked themselves out, and they then go before the tribunal. Their energy has been sapped, and they have lost their confidence.
This particular man went before the tribunal, and the chairman asked: "You live with your cousin?"—applicant, "Yes." The Chairman: "She receives a pension?"—the applicant: "No." The Chairman: "But she does, it is on this paper"—the applicant: "She does not draw a pension." Try to put yourself in the place of the applicant who is being contradicted by the chairman of this tribunal


on evidence of this character. The chairman's clerk then butts in and asks: "Who buys in for you?"—the applicant: "I do." The Clerk: "Who cooks for you?"—the applicant: "I do, but I have not much to cook." The clerk: "Who does the washing?"—the applicant: "I do." The Chairman: "What do you pay 5s. a week for?"— the applicant: "My bed." The tribunal awarded that man a supplementary pension of 3s. 6d. a week. Does any hon. Member justify that kind of treatment? I have another case of an applicant of 60 years of age. He has a pension of 7s. a week, but he also has £108 in the bank. The household includes a daughter, aged 42, who had not attended school since she was nine years of age. She has no work, although she has been eager to obtain it in spite of her ill health. Relatives living in the neighbourhood gradually put by a sum for the daughter which eventually accumulated to £382. What does the tribunal say in this case? It says that the capital of the invalid daughter must help to keep the father.
I have other cases, but there are many other of my hon. Friends who wish to speak and I shall not, therefore, quote them all. I sent these two cases to the Minister of Health, but they are only typical of many. Here is another. The applicant is a widow, aged 73, who during the last four years has occupied two unfurnished rooms in a house of which her spinster daughter is a tenant. During that period she has paid her daughter a weekly rent of 5s. The widow has provided the fuel and lighting, and the doctor has ordered her to have energy-bread, glucose and fish. The daughter is an elementary school teacher. This applicant goes before the tribunal and the tribunal turns the case down because the daughter is obtaining a salary from the school. In another case the Preston and District Old Age Pensioners' Association have been in touch with Bolton and Manchester. They have been asking that a friend should be allowed to go along with an applicant to the tribunal. In this district they are refusing to allow old age pensioners to have representatives with them. I have the whole correspondence with me, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will glance over it before the Parliamentary Secretary

replies. If he does so he will see that we are not overstating our case.
I now wish to quote to the Committee extracts from speeches made by the right hon Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove, which would show that the Act is not being interpreted or administered in the way that Parliament and the right hon. Gentleman intended. In February, the right hon. Gentleman, then Minister of Health, said:
In carrying out their duties the Board have encouraged their officers to take a reasonable and humane view of the applicant's circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1940; col. 1210, Vol. 357.]
Has that been done in the cases I have quoted? These cases are typical of many others in other parts of the country, and had there been more time, many of my hon. Friends on this side could have given similar concrete instances. However, this Debate has been arranged in such a way, after being delayed on three occasions, that time is inadequate. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the Regulations would be modified as necessary. Will the Regulations be modified as from to-day, or as soon as possible, in order that we can see that the intentions of Parliament are carried out in the administration of this Measure? In March, the right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment which stated:
(4) The administration of supplementary pensions shail be conducted in such manner as may best promote the welfare of pensioners.
I ask my hon. Friends who are in close touch with old age pensioners in industrial parts of the country whether those assurances have found expression in the administration of the Act. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
On the question of administration the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) made several points which I shall certainly have to take into account in the administration of the Statute in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious first of all that a long catechism should not be imposed on the old people, and that the questions should be limited in number and should be asked at the largest possible intervals. I certainly agree with him, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that the assurance has not been carried out. The then Minister of Health expressed his agreement on other matters, and said:


The fundamental point of administration raised by the hon. Member for Stoke was that as people reach three score years and ten it is a matter of general knowledge that their circumstances and, indeed, their bodily constitutions change—and for that reason it is necessary that the administration should take into account these special circumstances. I can give the assurance in the fullest sense that I have in mind that the personal requirements of the members of the families must he taken into account. … They must be dealt with by a special technique and by a special degree of sympathy, and it will be my object to administer the regulations along those lines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1940; cols. 2445 to 2475, Vol. 357.]
I hope that, as a result of to-day's Debate, a fundamental change is to be made in the administration of the Act. Do not let us forget that there are still thousands of old age pensioners having to live upon 10s. a week. Too many of us are forgetting that fact. In my view, the time has arrived when we should not only consider the abolition of the whole means test, but when the ordinary pension of 10s. should be increased as soon as possible in order that the ordinary old age pensioner can enjoy benefits similar to those that other sections of the community are obtaining. The Minister's assurances have not been fulfilled. Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us a promise that she will look into those assurances and that, if our statements are found to be statements of fact, a circular will be sent out as soon as possible to the Board's officers, and in particular to the Assistance Board, instructing them that these assurances must be fulfilled? There is no doubt that the House expected a generous interpretation of the Regulations. We have not had it, and we therefore have a right to expect that the evidence that we have brought forward will be considered, that the assurances given by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove will be renewed and that as soon as possible there will be a fundamental change in the administration of the Act.

Mr. Leslie: I cannot help feeling that the Act has been administered harshly and in such a way as to prevent allowances being granted, and certainly not in the spirit we expected when the Act was passed. Judging from the many letters that I have had from old people, and in conversations with quite a number of them, this household means test is hated even more than the old one. It

was bad enough when the old people had to depend on their sons and daughters, but it is worse when they have to depend on sons-in-law, especially when, as in many cases, they are handicapped by large families. This supplementary pension is deemed by disappointed pensioners a will-o'-the-wisp, something illusory, holding out false hopes. Here is a case of an old man living with a son-in-law, a miner. There are seven in family, the eldest girl of 17 earning 6s. a week, and the pensioner is allowed 3s. 6d. Under public assistance he would receive 6s. 3d. Surely a miner with a large family to support, one girl earning 6s., which is quite insufficient to feed her, has enough to do to provide for his family without his earnings being taken into account in deciding the legal allowance of 3s. 6d. to the father-in-law. Here is a case of an old lady living with a son-in-law who has a boy of 16, an apprentice, and another at school. The pensioner is allowed a paltry half-crown a week. Here is another old man of 80, living with a son-in-law who works in the pit, and no allowance is made to the pensioner. I have a case of a bedridden old lady of 78 living with her son. No allowance is granted despite the increased cost of living and the medical needs of the pensioner. These are sample cases which have been brought to my notice. How could it be wondered at that the old people are bitterly disappointed? In each case I have advised the pensioner to appeal, but I regret to say that in almost every case the appeal was turned down and no allowance was given. I hope that when the promised legislation is brought forward it will not only be generous but will be administered in the spirit and intention of Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I will do my best in the short time I have to answer as many as possible of the questions that have been put to me. Hon. Members have, quite rightly, quoted cases where there is extreme dissatisfaction. Although I cannot now go into any detail on the subject of the difficulty with the household test which has been referred to as the difficulty of the son-in-law, I am sure, when the matter is being considered in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement, anyone who considers the difficulties of the household will


be met on every second occasion with the son-in-law. Among other points which have been raised but which cannot be discussed at the moment is the subject of the exact amount of the pension. A point that we can discuss at present is the way in which it is working in the case of any particular grievance. The Secretary of State for Scotland gave a survey, and I will think it will he most useful if I confine myself exactly to the questions that have been addressed to me, but I should like to say that we all want the old people to get the pension in exactly the way we meant. There is no difference between us. I will go further. Those in charge of the Assistance Board want the pensioners to get it in exactly the same spirit as we agreed. We can also agree that it is only natural that some mistakes should occur when bringing this enormous number into the machine at one time. Over a million cases were dealt with, and throughout the country large numbers of people were employed to investigate particular cases. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said that some of the investigators had not done their job well and were not the right type of investigators. It will be better for the Board and for us if on every occasion when there is anything definite hon. Members bring cases to our notice. Everyone realises that there must be mistakes and there must be from time to time a person who is not suitable. While I thoroughly agree that there have been mistakes, we know that there have also naturally been misunderstandings on the part of the pensioners. They have not understood why they have not got this or why some one has got something else. We have to take that into consideration too. The best plan is that all the cases which have been quoted by hon. Members and others should be looked into individually.
That brings me to the subject of  views. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said he had sent many cases which had been increased on review and the hon. Member for Llanelly mentioned cases where the pensions had been reduced. We should realise that, in many of these cases, answers have to be sent by post because personal consultations and investigations cannot take place, and in order that a pensioner should get a pension quickly it was decided to

pay a certain sum for an interim period. That is why in some cases the pension has been for only a month while in other cases it has been for three months. The reason why a longer period was not given is that the full facts were not known and that there would have to be a review. I think it was the best arrangement to give the pension at once before the review on the understanding that it was only for a short time and that the pension might be changed. They have in some cases been changed up, and others have been changed down.
One hon. Gentleman said that not many went up, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham said that when he sends cases they very nearly always go up. His complaint was that as they nearly always went up it showed that more cases should be reviewed. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) put a case in which there had been a review downwards, and said that by decreasing the pension we were not carrying out that part of the Act in which the pension paid by the Board had to be not less than the old person was receiving from the public assistance authority. That is laid down in the Act, and if there is a mistake it is against the Act. The hon. Gentleman gave the case of a pensioner receiving 7s. 9d. from the public assistance authority. The Board gave 9s. 6d. There were cases in which they gave too much and other cases too little. When the review came it was found that the 9s. 6d. was too much, and when the supplementary pension was reduced to 7s. 9d. it was the same as the public assistance authority had given. Although the hon. Gentleman gave that case to show that we were not following the Act, the amount paid was not less than the amount paid from public assistance.
Several hon. Gentlemen asked about appeal tribunals and the right of appeal. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) said that there ought to be a worker on the appeals tribunals, but, in fact, a worker is represented on them. I have lists of the number of appeals, one to the end of August and one to the end of September. The number of appeals decided in August was 6,848. It has been said that there are a great number of cases in which the right of appeal was not given by the chairman, and there is some idea that people are not given a fair


chance of appeal. In August the number who were refused the right to appeal was 881, which was a small percentage of the total appeals decided. When I looked at the figure I was surprised to find it was so small in relation to the number of appeals. In the 6,848 appeals the determination of the Board's officer was confirmed in 5,676 and a new determination was substituted in 1,172 cases. For September the number of appeals was 8,857, and 711 were refused the right to appeal. The Board's officer's determination was confirmed in 6,797 cases and new determinations substituted in 2,060 cases. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Caerphilly and the hon. Member for Llanelly, I looked up the figures for Wales. In September the number of appeals was 1,847 and 43 were refused the right to appeal. In August the number of appeals was 1,215 and 189 were refused the right to appeal.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The smallness of the figure does not affect the principle that the old age pensioner should be allowed the right to appeal.

Miss Horsbrugh: I agree that there is a principle involved, but the hon. Gentleman asked for the number of appeals and I thought it would be of interest to have a note of the number that had been refused. I am not arguing at the moment whether it is right or wrong. I come to the question of those who have been evacuated to the reception areas and who have had changes in their supplementary pensions. In a great many cases the pension book is given for an extended period, perhaps up to 13 weeks. In other cases the book is given for a shorter period when it appears that the circumstances may change.
I have dealt with a good many of these cases and I have found that in many of them there has been the very unfortunate coincidence that the person had to leave an evacuation area at the time the pension book was running out. That was unfortunate because some people had a pension which had not been reviewed and had only had it for a month. They went to a reception area when the pension was due for review. They arrived at a new house where the Government was paying the householder 5s. for the billet. If a case can be made out to show that the

pensioner is suffering from distress or sickness and is in greater need, extra can be given by the Board, and it is being given, but if a billeting allowance of 5s. is being paid instead of the pensioner having to pay rent, he cannot also get the rent allowance in his supplementary pension. What we are trying to do is to get these particular cases dealt with as sympathetically as possible. It is an extremely difficult problem, because of the way in which people are moving about. Some have gone from evacuation areas only temporarily, some have changed their homes, and there are other difficulties. Fresh instructions have gone out, or are going out to the officers of the Board in the reception areas asking them to give special attention to these particular cases. Some of them come under no form of Regulation and have to be dealt with on their merits. I can assure the Committee that the matter has been taken up, and that every effort is being made to deal with these cases with the greatest possible sympathy.

Mr. Lipson: Could those instructions be made available to Members?

Mr. Ness Edwards: That is most unusual.

Miss Horsbrugh: I think I can tell the hon. Member that these cases have been dealt with in a sympathetic way. Where a billeting allowance of 5s. is given instead of the rent being paid, that must be taken into account, but it may be possible to increase the allowance as well. I should like to have replied to one or two more questions, but time will not permit me to say more than this.

Mr. E. Smith: In view of the evidence produced in this House with regard to the administration of the Act, can the hon. Lady give an undertaking that a record of these proceedings will be considered by the Ministry of Health and by the Board and that circulars will be sent out as soon as possible to the officials of the Board directing them to make their procedure accord with the intentions which have been expressed by Parliament?

Miss Horsbrugh: The record of this Debate will be considered very closely both in the Ministry of Health and by the officials of the Board, but any circular would not deal with changing


administration but would give directions, if definite faults were found. Like my right hon. Friend, the Board are anxious that this legislation should work as we all mean it to work. There have been cases of which we all know in which there has been misunderstanding, and those cases must be gone into separately, but I can assure hon. Members in closing that it is our intention, with the help of hon. Members who bring to our notice cases in which there is a misunderstanding, to make this legislation a real benefit to the people for whom it is intended.
Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £11,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1941, for the payment of Supplementary Pensions to certain persons in receipt of Old Age Pensions or Widows' Pensions, and for certain administrative expenses in connection therewith,
put, and agreed to.

Ordered, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Holdsworth.]

Resolution to be reported upon the next Sitting Day.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting day.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of

Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that the Government of India (Adaptation of Acts of Parliament) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1940, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament"—[Mr. Amery.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Orders made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the undermentioned areas, namely:—

(1) the Borough of Stafford,
(2) the Borough of Cheltenham,
(3) the Urban District of Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea,
(4) the Rural District of Eton (Parish of Iver),

copies of which were presented to this House on 16th October, be approved."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

SECRET SESSION.

Notice taken that strangers were present.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89, put the Question," That strangers be ordered to withdraw."

Question agreed to.

Strangers withdrew accordingly.

[The remainder of the Sitting was in Secret Session.]